Caso De Beers

9-700-082
REV. SEPTEMBER 06, 2002

DEBORA SPAR

Forever: De Beers and U.S. Antitrust Law
“As a worldwide dealer in enchanting illusions, Disney has nothing on De Beers.”
- The Economist1
In 1999, a series of spectacular advertisements adorned the bus-sides and billboards of major
American cities. Set against a lush black background, the ads displayed a perfect set of diamond
earrings,or a single sparkling solitaire. The lettering, in white, was sparse and to the point: “What
better time to celebrate the timelessness of love?” they asked. Or, “What are you waiting for, the year
3000?” Some were even more direct: “This wouldn't exactly be the year,” they noted, “to give her a
toaster oven.”
Coyly, the ads captured a joint fascination with the new millennium and the enduringallure of
diamonds. How better to capture time than with a diamond, they urged. How better to herald
eternal love? Indeed. According to analysts, U.S. diamond sales (30% of which occurred during the
Christmas season) were expected to surge by more than 10%, hitting a high of over $20 billion for
1999.2 A significant portion of this windfall would flow to De Beers, one of the world’s mostsuccessful corporations and the controlling force of the international diamond market.
There were many ironies behind De Beers’s millennial campaign, not least of which was that
diamonds — those eternal gifts — had only been sold on the mass market for a hundred years. And
that their allure was largely a creation of advertising. There also, though, were many stories buried
behind the campaign —stories which ran to the core of the global diamond market and De Beers’s
position within it. The millennial campaign, for example, was part of the company’s first attempt to
brand gems, to sell a “De Beers diamond” rather than a regular diamond. This was revolutionary in
a market where stones had always been centrally mixed and distributed, where De Beers’s power, in
fact, stemmed from itsability to collect the world’s rough diamonds and send them out again,
anonymously and bereft of origin. The millennial campaign also occurred at a time of rapid change
at the closely-held corporation. While the ads purred of luxury and langour, De Beers was facing
turmoil on all fronts: in western Africa, where illicit diamonds were flowing from the war-torn fields

1 “Glass With Attitude,” TheEconomist, December 20, 1997, p. 113.
2 SG Frankel Pollak Securities, Ltd., De Beers: Interim Forecasts, March 1999, p.1; HSBC Simpson McKie, Morning Meeting Notes:
De Beers, August 10, 1999, pp. 3-4.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Research Associate Jennifer L. Burns prepared this case under the supervision ofProfessor Debora Spar. HBS cases are developed solely as the
basis for class discussion. Cases are not intended to serve as endorsements, sources of primary data, or illustrations of effective or ineffective
management.
Copyright © 2000 President and Fellows of Harvard College. To order copies or request permission to reproduce materials, call 1-800-545-7685,
write Harvard Business SchoolPublishing, Boston, MA 02163, or go to http://www.hbsp.harvard.edu. No part of this publication may be
reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, used in a spreadsheet, or transmitted in any form or by any means—electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording, or otherwise—without the permission of Harvard Business School.

This document is authorized for use only in Economics - (MBA-FT) by Josep M.Sayeras from September 2011 to
March 2012.

700-082

Forever: De Beers and U.S. Antitrust Law

of Sierra Leone and Angola; in Russia, where post-Soviet strongmen were carving out their own
diamond fiefdoms; and in their home state of South Africa, roiling with the impact of apartheid’s
end.
De Beers was accustomed to chaos. The company thrived on it, and had long ago learned to...