.png)
Once upon a time, the diamond story wrote itself. The stones were rare, the allure unmatched, the market hungry. A few adverts and glossy campaigns were enough to keep buyers convinced that a diamond was indeed forever.
By Rudairo Mapuranga
But the world has changed. Today’s luxury buyer is not the same as the one who fell for the De Beers dream in the 1940s. Synthetic diamonds, indistinguishable to the naked eye, are entering the jewellery boxes of the middle class. Younger generations in the US and China are asking whether a diamond is worth the price tag when lab-grown versions can be had for a fraction of the cost. And the world’s economy, still staggering from COVID-19 and inflationary pressures, is forcing even the wealthier buyers to think twice before signing off on big purchases.
In the middle of this shifting market, South Africa, a country that once stood as the undisputed king of diamond production, is looking to fight back. The idea is simple in theory but ambitious in execution: a 1% levy on diamond revenue to fund international marketing of natural diamonds.
The proposal, which comes from the South African Diamond Producers Organisation (SADPO) and has been endorsed in principle by the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy, would see all producers contribute a fraction of their sales into a central marketing pot. That pot would then bankroll global campaigns positioning natural diamonds as the ultimate symbol of luxury, authenticity, and rarity — a direct counter to the rising tide of lab-grown stones.
This is not the first time the diamond world has talked about collective marketing. In the heyday of the De Beers monopoly, the “A Diamond is Forever” campaign didn’t just sell stones, it sold the idea of love, permanence, and exclusivity. Back then, producers didn’t need convincing to chip in, they simply followed De Beers’ lead. But the diamond world today is fragmented. Producers large and small compete not just for buyers but for market narrative, and convincing them to fund a shared campaign will take more than nostalgia.
Still, South Africa is pushing. The 1% levy, supporters argue, would not cripple producers’ margins but could be the difference between slow decline and market revival. The logic is clear: if the pie shrinks, everyone loses, so why not spend a little to keep it from shrinking?
The Zimbabwe Connection
As I read about South Africa’s proposal, I couldn’t help but think about Zimbabwe’s diamond sector. Here, the rules are different. Our diamond policy is one of the most restrictive in the region — only four companies are licensed to mine: the state-owned Zimbabwe Consolidated Diamond Company (ZCDC), Anjin, Alrosa Zimbabwe, and Murowa Diamonds.
The policy was born out of a belief that too many players in Chiadzwa meant chaos, leakages, and lost revenue. In tightening the space, the government hoped to centralise control and ensure a bigger slice of the proceeds went to the state. But there’s an unintended consequence: with so few players, marketing innovation is limited. Diamonds from Zimbabwe are often sold quietly, without the kind of storytelling that can push their brand in lucrative markets.
If South Africa’s 1% marketing levy works, it will raise an important question for Zimbabwe: should we be pooling resources not just to mine diamonds, but to sell them as a national brand?
Why Marketing Matters Now
It’s easy to forget that in the luxury market, a diamond isn’t just a stone — it’s a story. It’s the image of a couple in a Paris café, a model in a glossy magazine, a red carpet moment under the flash of cameras. Lab-grown diamonds can match the sparkle, but they can’t match a well-crafted narrative about rarity and heritage.
South Africa’s move is an attempt to remind the world that its diamonds are more than commodities — they are pieces of the country’s history and identity. Zimbabwe could do the same. Imagine a campaign not just about “Zimbabwean diamonds” but about their origins, the communities they support, and the landscapes they come from. This is where collective marketing becomes powerful.
Of course, in Zimbabwe’s case, there is an elephant in the room: transparency. The diamond industry here has often been criticised for opacity in sales and revenue distribution. For a marketing levy to work, producers — and the government — would need to show clear evidence that the money is being used for its intended purpose. Without trust, even the best campaign risks being dismissed as another paper promise.
Industry Concerns
South Africa’s plan is not without its critics. Some producers worry that the levy will hit smaller operators harder, eating into margins at a time when costs are already high. Others question whether a marketing campaign can really shift the tide against synthetics, whose prices are falling fast and whose appeal to younger buyers is growing.
Heraeus, a major player in the precious metals market, warns that such moves could also disrupt global supply flows. If marketing increases demand for natural diamonds, it could change how producers allocate sales, and in a tight market, that could mean price volatility.
For Zimbabwe, the question is even sharper: do we need a 1% levy when we already have such tight control over production? Or is it exactly because of that tight control that we should be thinking about how to present our diamonds to the world?
Learning From the Neighbours
South Africa’s producers know they are not just competing with synthetics — they are competing with each other, and with countries like Botswana, which has built an international reputation for ethical, high-quality stones. Botswana’s partnership with De Beers has given it a marketing platform that most producers can only dream of.
Zimbabwe, by contrast, is still fighting to shake off the negative perceptions of Chiadzwa’s chaotic past. Even with a four-player system, the global image hasn’t fully recovered. A well-funded, transparent marketing push could be one of the few tools capable of turning that around.
If South Africa can convince its often-competitive producers to pool 1% of their revenue, Zimbabwe’s four diamond companies should, in theory, find it even easier. Four boardrooms. Four signatures. One campaign.
The diamond market is in a transitional phase. Analysts predict that prices for natural diamonds will face pressure in the short term but could recover if supply tightens and marketing keeps demand stable. For platinum group metals, the story is similar — volatility now, but potential upside if the green energy revolution sustains demand.
South Africa’s 1% marketing levy is a bet on the future that storytelling and brand positioning still matter in an age of fast fashion and cheaper alternatives. Whether the bet pays off remains to be seen, but it’s a reminder to countries like Zimbabwe that mining doesn’t end when the stone leaves the ground. The real value is unlocked when the world knows and cares about where it came from.
In the end, diamonds will always sparkle. The question is: whose diamonds will the world choose to wear?
