The problem is that a diamond is inherently a basically worthless rock, so its retail value is already a figment of the public's imagination. Blue Nile is the closest that exists today, but they are not that disruptive since the retail channels already have lots of competition -- it's the supply (De Beers) that's monopolized.
The real disruption will come in the form of widely available manufactured (not mined) diamonds.
I used to think of diamonds as basically worthless rocks, until I went shopping for an engagement ring stone and looked at them under the jeweler's microscope, and thought "I want to be dressed from head to toe in these things". With mass-produced diamonds, that may become a reality.
Yes, they're nice to look at, but unlike, say, emeralds, they're not very rare -- they're simply controlled by a monopoly supplier. Manufactured diamonds will bring back a competitive supply which would exist if there was a healthy assortment of companies in the diamond mining industry today.
No. There shouldn't be a Warby Parker for Diamonds.
Sure there are services like BlueNile etc but they're nothing like a Warby Parker for Diamonds.
Diamonds are bought, not because of what they are but what they represent.
The whole point of diamonds is to capitalise on what they're representing rather than their actual worth.
Their value is created through the likes of "diamonds are a girl's best friend" which is why the price is high for them.
Hence the advertisements have been developed around the whole perceived value of diamonds ala. "diamond's are a girls best friend" because when you present a woman with a diamond you're presenting her with a promise - a promise that you will look after & take care of her. Which is something that most women want.
True but actually less significant than you think. With the caveat that the diamond should not be insignificantly expensive the reactions to engagement rings fall into one of two categories
a) the girl is a "nice girl" and is more than happy that the finacee got a ring that was even better valuable (I've one singaporian friend that actually had her fiancee take his ring back and buy another one from singapore - not because she wanted a bigger one but she wanted him to get a better deal (I think it ended up being a bigger diamond but that's not what she was angling for))
b) the girl wants to have a bigger ring than her friends in which case it's also a win.
The actual value of the ring is more of a "hygiene condition". Once it costs "enough" then to someone who actually cares (most girls are just happy with getting a hubby) what actually matters is what it's perceived to cost and a fiancee who can deliver bigger, delivers bigger!
Imagine if the cultural norm went from spending a lot on an expensive diamond where the money went to a textbook evil corporation to spending much less on a cheap manufactured diamond of higher quality and donating the difference to the charity of the lady's choice.
It would require an incredible amount of ad spend to change cultural norms which have been created by advertisers over generations. The chances of it happening are miniscule, and the startups who are attempting to do it would go bankrupt several times over before it was even close to being achieved.
It actually reminds me of a Warren Buffet Quote “If you gave me $100 Billion and said, ‘Take away the soft-drink leadership of Coca-Cola in the world’, I’d give it back to you and say it can’t be done”
Go after the cultural norms with celebrities. Get Oprah and Ellen and Kate Middleton and Cosmo and Glamour on board, and arrange for high-profile weddings to have manufactured diamonds and large charitable donations. Things like this can change pretty fast when it's made obvious that there really is a right side and a wrong side. Gay marriage is a recent example, and that has the extra hurdle of having to overcome strong religious beliefs.
But you'll never replace diamonds with manufactured diamonds. The whole point of them is they are expensive.
Expensive, scalable (huge diamonds for celebrities, small ones for poor people, and everything in between), durable, small enough to slip in your pocket (to surprise them), and backed by a monopoly supplier.
You could try it with another rare gem (rubies, emeralds, opals) but you won't have a monopoly supply, so you can't compete with the advertising dollars of the diamond miners.
You could try to switch the marriage tradition to something completely different (look at China, where are house and car are generally a pre-requisite for marriage), and hope that the practicality of the tradition wins over big advertising dollars. The problem is, celebs don't care about a new car the same way a newly married couple do.
Or you could try to encourage an "experience" gift. Paris could set itself up as the city to propose in, and smaller cities could also compete.
It's just hard to think of everything with all the advantages of diamonds. The disadvantage is their lack of practicality, and their slightly unethical origins, but nothing seems to have displaced them so far.
$100 Billion is more than half the market capitalization of Coca-Cola. So for that amount of money, one might be able to buy considerable influence with the company (e.g. via voting rights that come with stocks), and run it into the ground.
Of course, he's probably talking about using the $100 billion to build up a competitor, and make some money.
Bluenile.com does this, and is successful. Of course they only solve the unpleasant distribution, and misleading product naming issues. They saw the problem of slimy sales tactics and gouging in the diamond business and fixed it.
1. Oligopoly market structure CHECK 2. Insane gross margins CHECK 3. Opaque and misleading product naming CHECK 4. Expensive distribution through unpleasant channels CHECK CHECK CHECK