Why we have not — yet — talked about Pandora?

Marianne Riou

June 3 Editorial – You will have certainly noticed that we have knowingly failed to communicate the exchanges pitting Pandora against certain stakeholders in the natural diamond industry.

In accordance with our editorial line, we didn’t want to take the risk of fueling a counter-productive debate. If we have now decided to publish the articles on the subject by Lenore Fedow and Rob Bates in La Lettre this week, it’s because they provide a tempered and coherent analysis of the situation and encourage us to look a little further. And because we understand their point of view…

What is clear is that it is never a good idea to attempt to gain market share by denigrating a supposed competitor. The same goes for messages driven by a communication strategy. The statements of any company must be justified, since their responsibility and their future are at stake. Obviously, words are easy to manipulate. But what can we say about the values conveyed in such a manner and about the global image of the industry or industries represented?

I wondered about what the debate on natural and lab-grown diamonds implied for French-speakers. So I looked at what we obtained with a Google search for “Pandora + diamants synthétiques” (Pandora + lab-grown diamonds). And I read the articles that appeared on the 1st and 2nd pages*, assuming that no reader would feel the need to look any further… It is worrying. Even appalling. The current discourse (and virtually no article is documented or cites its sources, even those from big media groups) seizes the clichés about natural diamonds, blood diamonds and the impact of mining, and accepts at face value the “ethical” and aggressive ideas disseminated by some lab-grown diamond producers. The rot has set in, how sad… As for the jewelers that sell pieces set with lab-grown diamonds, their discourse seems more refined to me (I know that they read us and are well informed) and focused on the properties of the lab-grown diamonds, even if some formulations are at times ambiguous. But I will let you be the judge, after all, this is what it’s all about

What concerns me is that proven and non-aggressive information on the two parties exists. Here, at Rubel & Ménasché, we do not intend to lash out at lab-grown diamonds. When we launched this website and its informational section nine years ago, it was precisely to pass on quality information and to express different points of view. We have not spared the big diamonds producers, for example. We wanted to share the most honest information possible about the natural diamond industry. Certainly, first and foremost, we address a professional and informed audience. Consumers read the general press much more than the specialized press. They do not know our institutions and representatives, so the discourse, which is very codified, does not resonate for them. And I note that we still have much work ahead to correctly communicate what natural diamonds – and lab-grown ones – are. I think, like my fellow journalists, that if that is the way they play it, the lab-grown diamond industry risks losing as much as ours…

However, we are going to continue to defend beautiful and “quality” diamonds. To defend diamonds that bring joy and meaning, to explain how they are produced and how to move forward to a more sustainable industry, one that respects humans, the environment and our planet. No, the natural diamond industry is not perfect. Well, we will keep getting better, we will always progress to support and carry the real and fine history of diamonds… And I have no doubt that, all together, we will succeed.

Source Rubel & Ménasché 

* I don’t want to mention anyone, ultimately it’s not that important (and it would be too “tedious”). But I’ll keep the sources available if more information is needed.