Has Technology Killed the Jewelry Industry?
psmag.com
psmag.com
Obviously, though, tech has not killed the jewelry industry. Jewelry suffers from being the fashion industry at it's most reductive: all form, no function. That is, we all gotta wear clothes, nobody's gotta wear jewelry. There's probably quite a few cultural changes all hitting the jewelry industry at once: people are marrying later in life than they used to, it's taking younger people longer to become financially stable than it used to, and what counts as a good gift isn't what it used to be -- the article itself says as much:
"But it’s not all Kindles and iPhones; according to the De Beers report, millennials are choosing to spend their dollars on experiential activities over luxury goods as well."
I don't know if thats accurate. Supposedly, tech hasn't killed vehicles ownership either for Millenials, but it sure looks like it's helping dig the grave:
http://www.fastcoexist.com/3027876/millennials-dont-care-abo...
"Because millennials use technology in every facet of their lives—from mobile phones to tablets and laptops—to connect with friends and family and to get work done, the tech gadget is their most prized possession, and has a much higher value to a CMC than transportation or owning a car. Think about it: while CMCs are likely to share a car and a ride, there’s no way they would ever share their phone.
CMCs game together and hang out virtually, they don't have that same need to physically get together as prior generations. The CMC’s popularity and relationships are defined by their online status, not their "cool ride" and they make all of their connections online. millennials search for jobs online. They prefer to coordinate dating online, and meet people through websites and apps."
In all honesty, tech probably is "digging the grace", so to speak. The blurb I mention from the article goes on to illustrate how an expensive vacation, shared via photo streams and status updates on social media, is probably displacing the "Check out this jewelry I got! U jelly?"-type of conspicuous consumption people used to partake in.
I noticed that you called that out in another comment. Fully agree. Status is never going to disappear, just change forms. Kudos!
Well, strictly speaking, we don't usually have to wear clothes. In the modern urbanized lifestyle, clothing serves almost no important function during warm weather. The main reasons I wear clothing during warm weather are social and legal pressure, not pragmatism.
So what you're saying is... you gotta wear clothes?
Not that I agree, but it's not like he said the same thing in another way. He tried to make a distinction between having as ("we must") vs ("society makes us").
So imagine my delight when, of course, someone did.
Although if you s/clothes/suits, then the argument would probably be true ;).
A cold-adjusted human can easily deal with 10C without protective clothing (at least for short periods), and human heat-resistance actually improves without body-covering clothing. (Clothes impede the effectiveness of sweating.) Any hot environment humans can handle without AC, they can also handle without clothing.
Just look at any of the african tribes that either wear an insubstantial skirt of some kind or wear nothing at all.
If you only count "saves us from low temperatures" as important and not "enabling me not to see most people's genitals unless we're in a romantic relationship".
Why would I want to see, say, anybody's testicles or someone's half-wiped ass while I work? Even tits, which I'd normally like would be more of a distraction (and no, it's not due to not being de-sensitized to them: you can never be de-sensitized to tits).
There's an underlying premise here that "cultural doesn't really matter" or that we should just do what's a biological necessity.
As humans, we do most things because of cultural reasons, or in other words, because we collectively came up with some rules/trends/fashions/etc. We're not mice or ants to just do stuff because of biological imperatives.
I think its become a lot easier to discover that diamond scarcity and intrinsic value is artificial and was pushed by De Beers, who have global dominance in the market, to create a industry especially around engagement rings.
I'm not surprised demand is dropping, we have better information and more choice now.
I like this article on the the diamond cartel mainly because it was written in 1982 and shows how long this has been relatively common knowledge - http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-you...
EDIT: rock -> mineral
Back in the day, if you wanted a diamond, you went to one of a few local jewelers and that was your choice. Now you can order from the internet.
However, unlike most other industries disrupted by internet information sharing, a jewelers entire business model was predicated on them knowing more than you, which is now lost.
However, the article makes a good point. All the millennials I know care a lot more about their phones than their rings and earrings.
Which is a little funny, since after the initial drop in value I bet a decent jewel beats a phone after, say, 4 years.
Who cares what it's worth in 4 years?
Their value drops precipitously. Probably not quite as bad as an iPhone, but pretty close.
Yes. Tradition. You just don't sell diamonds, period. It's completely arbitrary - that's why it took DeBeers decades to firmly establish it within society in the past century. See the 1982 article every other poster links to.
There is a price list index for wholesale stones
> "Because of the steep markup on diamonds, individuals who buy retail and in effect sell wholesale often suffer enormous losses. For example, Brod estimates that a half-carat diamond ring, which might cost $2,000 at a retail jewelry store, could be sold for only $600 at Empire."
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-you...
> The price you can get for your ruby depends on its quality characteristics, but there is one thing you should remember: It is unlikely that you will be able to sell a ruby gemstone for an amount that is even close to its retail price, especially if you are selling to jewelry stores. In fact, depending on who buys your stone, you may even get less than 50% of what you bought the ruby for.
Source: http://www.jewelrynotes.com/how-can-you-sell-your-ruby-jewel...
Other gems in general:
> Jewelers often sell stones for 2-3 (or more!) times their cost, but they are unlikely to buy stones from the general public for more than half their normal wholesale cost (i.e., they may buy a stone at a regular wholesale cost of $100, sell it at retail for $200-300, but only buy it back from an individual for $50)
These types of jewelry are what I see all my friends wearing. They're pretty, interesting and of artistic merit, but they're not often not made of terribly valuable materials, and so they're not very expensive.
The few diamonds I've ever purchased, I've done through eBay. GIA certified, laser inscribed, and then verified under a loupe upon receipt. It was not a pleasant experience, but it was worth the considerable hassle. I took them to my jeweler to set them and he was blown away by the price I paid. He immediately asked for the sellers info, claiming that he pays more. Maybe an act, I don't know.
Jewelry stores going out of business is very different from the jewelry market going out of business. I think a surprisingly large amount of the market is being redirected to private purchases. Costume jewelry is also a fast growing market and is driving the growth of a lot of startup marketplaces.
I think a diamond can be damaged, but it cannot be "used". In fact, documenting the history of a diamond (a neat business idea) can only possibly enhance the stone's value.
I agree with this if the Jewellery in question is pure gold 21k and the like. Diamonds however, i do not believe to be a store of value.
Ever try selling a diamond back after a few years? I doubt you would get back the price you paid for it.
Gold however, can be easily sold back. Dealers will pay you at the going rate of Gold per gram, or maybe at a slight discount.
"I think a diamond can be damaged, but it cannot be "used". In fact, documenting the history of a diamond (a neat business idea) can only possibly enhance the stone's value."
Interesting idea, think it may have some value for people who want unique stories to tell.
That being said, in the Diamond District in NYC, multi-million dollar transactions are done informally with verbal contracts. Some things never will change.
One jeweler interviewed for this article is surprised people would go online and buy diamonds site unseen from Blue Nile. Having just done this dance myself, walking around the diamond district LA (and getting referrals from friends) I would not trust most of the jewelers there further than I could throw them. I would be more inclined to trust publicly traded Blue Nile that I was getting what I paid for.
I want to believe that, but, you know, "millenials" are still human beings, too. I'm going to err on the side of them being just as vain as the rest of us...
Rather, the article mentions that millenials are more inclined to spend money on "experiences" than shiny baubles -- but thanks to social networks, experiences are the new shiny baubles. And even more effectively so: In the past, when your s/o dropped a months worth of pay on jewelry for you, you could still only show it off to people you saw in-person. Now, when your s/o pays for you to go on vacation, you have status updates and photo sharing to show everyone you've ever known just how conspicuous your consumption is.
All that said, I know I've read articles that state (and it certainly seems reasonable) that people who spend their money on experiences rather than material goods tend to be happier. So maybe it's overall a net positive.
It will cost you significantly more than a lifetime supply of quartz watches.
It will require more maintenance than a quartz watch.
And it will keep less accurate time."
Where's the value?
Lasts a lifetime. Which means it:
- acquires sentimental value; it can be passed on to children, and then to grandchildren
- doesn't tie you to the economic system that much - you bought it, you have it, you don't need to go and buy a new one every year
- doesn't generate so much waste; lets you refuse participating in the waste-generation system
- still a much better value store than diamonds
People who believe that, are going to spend an awful lot more on smart watches, than a Rolex costs, in the next 10 years.
A quartz watch will do everything a Rolex will do, and more, while keeping more accurate time. A smartwatch will do significantly more than a quartz watch will.