Your point certainly sounds reasonable, but it's not how the human mind works. The point of conspicuous consumption is to make believe that the man is "in a position to throw away money like this", because that (imaginary) man is considered to be a good provider/sexually attractive. Talking about it beforehand would be like telling your kids you were going to dress up as Santa Claus to put presents under the tree—the reality is no different, but the fantasy is ruined.
And DeBeers certainly didn't create the notion of conspicuous consumption as a romantic gesture—women have been receiving silver and gold trinkets for millennia, especially ones adorned with various gemstones. DeBeers just popularized diamonds as the gem to be specifically associated with such gestures—and they're a fairly effective/obvious one, too, since they're eye-catching, distinctive, and easy to adorn oneself with.
Re:Have you ever tried to sell a diamond?
by anxiousape on Saturday June 05, 2010 @04:58PM
(#1407431)
You are right that the fantasy needs to be played out and its duly mentioned in the article about the woman already expecting a diamond even though the diamond is a surprise gift. This suspense 'game' was what De Beers invented. I mean they could have marketed black rock if it happened to be their line of business.
> I mean they could have marketed black rock if it happened to be their line of business.
Well, if it happened to be their line of business, and they had a monopoly on the supply of it. It's hard to market things you can find in your back yard.
Re:Have you ever tried to sell a diamond?
by Zarkonnen on Saturday June 05, 2010 @06:56AM
(#1406735)
So maybe we need a more grown-up fantasy...
Re:Have you ever tried to sell a diamond?
by billswift on Saturday June 05, 2010 @09:20AM
(#1406837)
Fantasies aren't really very grown-up. Maybe more people need to grow up enough not to need so much fantasy.
Never give up on fantasy!
That rock is a form of marital financial insurance policy, should she decide to bail on you for whatever reason.
It's small, portable and relatively fungible.
She definitely knows that, too.
And yes, you could call it a reverse dowry.
Or a spousal hedge.
No it isn't, at least not when the article was written, and I can't see why that would have changed in the past 30 years. The article discusses how it's basically impossible to sell a diamond for anything near "market value" (as far as that term makes sense in the context of a global near-monopoly) and how a lot of places won't pay cash for diamonds at all.
Congratulations to the DeBeers marketing department, they've done an excellent job of making people believe this sort of stuff is needed.