Deglobalization and the Case for Fewer, Better Diamonds
- Avi Krawitz
- 1 day ago
- 3 min read
Watching events unfold at the World Economic Forum in Davos, one major theme has already emerged in 2026: the era of globalization is over.
That presents another challenge for the diamond industry, although it’s not necessarily a new one. The trade benefited greatly from globalization in the 2010s, as the expansion of China’s jewelry market was driven by the belief that the country could transition toward a US-style, consumer-led economy. That dynamic meant more diamonds were sold in Mumbai, Antwerp, Dubai, Tel Aviv, and New York.
More recently, the diamond industry has contracted as China’s economy has retreated inward, and consumers have returned to a savings rather than spending mentality.
So, what does the fragmentation of the world order mean for the diamond industry, particularly in the context of rising demand for synthetics and the scale of the technological disruption we’re facing?
In posing that dilemma, Martin Rapaport urged the industry in a presentation at the VicenzaOro show, to shift toward “fewer, better things,” citing former De Beers marketing guru Stephen Lussier and the campaign De Beers developed in response to the 2008 financial crisis.
Rapaport took the idea a step further. While the 2008 De Beers campaign suggested consumers would pivot to quality over quantity, Rapaport argued that the industry itself should focus on selling to fewer, better customers. Rather than chasing high-volume, lower-value sales, the focus should be on high-value transactions with high-income consumers. The riches are in the niches, as he likes to say.
The problem with that approach is that it cuts out a large section of the market, which relies on selling volume. That includes miners, who cannot pick and choose what they pull out of the ground, dealers whose service depends on holding inventory to match the right diamond with the right person at the right time, and high-volume manufacturers, not to mention India’s cottage industry.
That said, the segmentation of the market is happening anyway, and it is already having a significant impact on those parts of the industry. Starting at retail, jewelers are increasingly forced to choose between a volume-driven model centered on synthetics-led lower price points, and a high-value, lower-volume approach focused on selling fewer, better things to fewer, higher-income customers.
Rapaport’s argument is to make that shift intentional rather than a byproduct of market forces. In doing so, the industry can recreate the exclusivity and aspiration around natural diamonds that has been eroded in recent years, with a knock-on effect of stimulating demand as less affluent consumers mature.
It takes the industry back to the basics of making diamonds desirable and scarce. In a more fragmented, deglobalized world, scale is no longer the obvious advantage it once was. Despite the volume of goods available in the market, the industry must accentuate the exclusivity of the best, most valuable diamonds to elevate the profile of the entire category.
That would be a difficult strategy to implement as a collective industry, shaped as it is by different business models and ways of operating. Still, it is worth thinking about and exploring this shift in mindset, especially given that it is already happening.
This blog first appeared in the January 26 Pressing Matters Executive Memo. Read the full memo here, Pressing Matters, featuring the following sections:
In Focus: Botswana’s Inventory
Chart Check: India’s Diamond Trade
Your Take: The Value of a Diamond
What I’m Watching
The News That Matters
Coming Up
Pic of the Week
Comments