Do Consumers Really Care About Diamond Origin?

By Rob Bates | June 17, 2025

The most striking moment during the Rapaport Breakfast at the JCK show on June 8 came during the question-and-answer session. Aleah Arundale, founder of the “Jewelers Helping Jewelers” Facebook page, strode to the mic and upbraided the guest speaker, De Beers CEO Al Cook, for De Beers’ new marketing plan, which talks about—among other things—the benefits diamonds bring to Botswana.

“Do you know how often an American jeweler is asked where a diamond’s from?” Arundale stated. “It’s never. It’s not once a year, it’s not twice a year. It’s never. So as much as you want [consumers] to care [where their diamond’s from], as much as I want them to care, they don’t. So stop trying to tell the customer what they should care about.”

Arundale may be right that the issue is rarely raised in America. However, customer queries do not provide a full measure of consumer interest.

As Edahn Golan wrote recently, not all people voice their concerns. I know someone who won’t shop at a major retailer because of something she read about its labor practices. She never questioned any employees about the policies or contacted corporate headquarters asking for clarification. She simply stopped shopping there. Similarly, just because customers don’t ask about diamond origin doesn’t mean they don’t care.

Now I suppose many do not care. But I believe some do. Brilliant Earth’s business was built on supplying origin information for mined diamonds, at a time when no other retailers did. Canadian diamonds were also quite popular for a while, because they were billed as “conflict-free.”

The whole mined-versus-lab debate is fundamentally about origin, and whether it matters if a diamond comes from the ground or a factory. So yes, origin matters. Diamond demand is well-established, but miners now have to convince consumers that they should buy natural diamonds—the same way that growers spent years diligently making their case.

Let’s examine how they did that. Lab-grown diamonds are basically cheaper gemstones. A diamond engagement ring is typically considered a luxury purchase. Grooms don’t want to look cheap. There was always a risk that created stones would be considered a lesser product, like cubic zirconia or moissanite.

That’s where the eco-posturing likely helped. Virtually every LGD company claims its products are “eco-friendly.” They do this even after the Federal Trade Commission warned them not to. Why? Because, one assumes, the pitch works. The idea is “You’re not only saving money; you’re saving the world” (which is absurd, but never mind).

Of course, one reason this “eco” positioning is so potent is that mined diamonds don’t have the best image. Not many industries have had a blockbuster movie chronicling their worst moment.

I like the Botswana talk because it doesn’t feel defensive. It’s not saying, “Don’t worry about blood diamonds. They’re handled by the Kimberley Process.” (The KP is not perfect, as Google will tell you.) Touting Botswana doesn’t contend that 99% of all natural diamonds are ethical—which is also debatable, sorry to say.

Instead, it changes the conversation. It says these specific diamonds are ethical. And Botswana has an excellent case to make; you’d be hard-pressed to listen to Botswana’s president or its mining minister call themselves “diamond babies” without being moved. We talk about the “Botswana story,” but the reason it could resonate is that it’s not a “story”—it’s true.

Botswana is currently hurting, and lab diamonds are a main reason why. The country wants more value for its diamonds. Developing a market for Botswana-branded diamonds will take a lot of time and resources. It may not work. You can’t blame the country for trying.

Remember, “eco” hasn’t actually been the prime driver for lab sales. That’s generally acknowledged to be price. The “eco” message just made customers feel better about spending less.

Could the Botswana-origin message persuade people to spend more? The data on this is mixed; consumers often say they’ll pay more for ethical products, and then don’t. No one I know considers the traceability angle a magic bullet—it’s merely part of the marketing mix. De Beers’ Origin brand bundles the “ethical sourcing” argument inside a larger pitch. Even if the Botswana story appeals to only a small minority of consumers, it’s now possible to electronically target the ones most receptive to it.

Yes, this raises questions. At a session during the recent World Federation of Diamond Bourses presidents’ meeting, Diamond Dealers Club president Elliot Krischer argued that GIA’s plan to put Tracr-based origin information on grading reports could prove a problem.

“Russian diamonds [used to be] the greatest things on earth,” he said. “Now you won’t put Russian diamonds on your certificate. What does the person who has [Russia origin] on his certificate do?“

Botswana is considered a stable democratic country, he noted, but what if that changes?

Mmetla Masire, CEO of Okavango Diamond Company, Botswana’s state-owned diamond seller, responded: “You can say that about anything. Tesla three years ago was [a popular brand]. Now no one wants it.”

True. Brands live or die on their reputations. By turning itself into a selling point, Botswana is putting itself and its mining industry under the microscope. That has risks, as any Tesla dealer can tell you.

It also offers opportunities. As Cook pointed out at the Rapaport Breakfast, the hope is that if all diamond-producing nations have to supply origin information for their stones, they may raise standards at their mines. That could help the industry’s overall reputation.

We’re already seeing such a move with Angola. The history of Angola’s diamond industry is not great. Yet at the JCK show, Angola mining executives conspicuously followed what might be called the “Botswana model” (which is still unproven on a consumer level), talking up ethics and impact.

Even if jewelry shoppers do not care whether diamond proceeds fund a hospital in Luanda, image-conscious brands do—so they may be more interested in sourcing from Angola after years of staying away. (Brilliant Earth currently carries Angolan diamonds; it says they’re on “the pathway to beyond conflict-free.”)

We don’t know if the natural diamond business talking more about “social impact” will help sales (I can’t imagine it would hurt). Yet, it’s doing it, since growers can’t.

And fear of lab is increasingly guiding miner marketing. Take the new De Beers’ beacon: Ombre Desert Diamonds. Many have found it a head-scratcher—why brown and off-color diamonds?

The issue, again, is synthetics. De Beers wanted to create a “beacon” but feared that if it introduced a new three-stone ring, growers would develop their own, cheaper versions. So De Beers would be spending millions to advertise a competitive product.

While the lab industry can make brown stones, it may not be able to churn out enough for this year’s holiday season. The Origin and Ombre Desert Diamonds lines are clear attempts to differentiate naturals from labs. Ombre Desert Diamonds even celebrates the “imperfection” of naturals—an idea that’s gained surprising traction.

Long-term, many believe the answer lies not in generic “category marketing” but in individual natural diamond brands speaking for themselves. That’s how the Swiss watch industry came back after being knocked down by the “quartz crisis.” And it’s why the Natural Diamond Council talks so much about designers.

Looked at that way, all this category marketing seems like a band-aid solution. But sometimes you need a band-aid when you’re bleeding.

Top: De Beers CEO Al Cook introducing the De Beers Origin brand at JCK Las Vegas (photo courtesy of De Beers)