Guest article by Nicolas Chrétien
Why abandoning the affordable diamond market could be the industry’s biggest mistake.
The Swiss Parallel, developed by DMCC and ORIGINALLUXURY, and presented at the recent Dubai Diamond Conference, represents an important contribution to an industry that has long struggled to articulate a coherent global strategy. It is perhaps one of the first attempts to present such a comprehensive strategic vision in a single report.
That ambition deserves recognition.
Yet its most troubling recommendation is also its first strategic move: that the natural diamond industry should deliberately and permanently cede the commodity tier to laboratory-grown diamonds.
I consider this a fundamental strategic mistake.
Not because the natural diamond industry can win a price war against laboratory-grown diamonds. It cannot. But because it should never have been fighting a price war in the first place.
Its product is origin, not cost.
Surrendering on price is still letting price set the terms.
The alternative is not to compete on cost, but on what makes natural diamonds fundamentally different: their geological history and the emotional significance a natural diamond can acquire over generations.
Affordability does not determine meaning.
If the natural diamond industry’s future depends on persuading consumers that natural origin matters, why should that argument apply only to those who can afford diamonds above a particular price?
A Commercial Reality or a Strategic Choice?
The report explicitly recommends that natural diamonds stop defending the commodity tier, referring specifically to sub-$3,000 stones, and concentrate on premium positioning.
Its argument is straightforward: with laboratory-grown diamonds enjoying a substantial price advantage, continuing to defend this segment is a battle the report describes as “structurally unwinnable.”
I understand the economic reasoning. The natural diamond industry cannot compete with industrial manufacturing on production costs.
But there is a fundamental difference between recognising that laboratory-grown diamonds have transformed the affordable diamond market and deliberately surrendering that market to them.
The first is a commercial reality. The second is a strategic choice.
The report insists that this is not surrender, but a resource-allocation decision. Yet it also calls for a clear, public and permanent withdrawal from defending an entire market segment. Whatever terminology we choose, the strategic consequences deserve serious examination.
Natural origin does not become more authentic as the price increases. Geological history does not become more remarkable above a particular retail threshold.
If these qualities genuinely differentiate natural diamonds, they should remain relevant across the entire market.
The challenge is not to make affordable natural diamonds compete with laboratory-grown diamonds on price. It is to give consumers compelling reasons to choose them at every price point.
Are We Learning the Right Lesson from Switzerland?
The Swiss watch industry’s recovery is an important historical reference, but its lessons are more complex than a simple retreat into luxury.
The report itself acknowledges the strategic importance of Swatch, an affordable quartz watch that helped finance the revival of Swiss mechanical watchmaking.
The Swiss industry did not recover the mass commodity market it had lost. But it did rebuild an accessible Swiss proposition, with its own design, story and identity.
And here lies a fundamental difference.
Swatch remained a product of the Swiss watch industry. By contrast, The Swiss Parallel proposes positioning laboratory-grown diamonds as the accessible tier, potentially leaving that market to a competing category.
The lesson should not be that every threatened industry must surrender its affordable segment. It should be that successful industries find new ways to create consumer desire, differentiate their products and develop sustainable business models.
Whose Strategy Is This?
DMCC is not exclusively committed to the natural diamond sector. It is also actively developing Dubai as an international hub for laboratory-grown diamonds, organising dedicated symposia and supporting their commercial expansion.
In August 2026, DMCC formally established a dedicated Lab-Grown Diamond Vertical, reinforcing its commitment to developing this sector alongside its natural diamond activities.
This does not invalidate the report’s conclusions. However, it introduces an important distinction between the strategic interests of the broader diamond business and those of the natural diamond industry.
The report itself proposes treating laboratory-grown diamonds as category expansion rather than category destruction.
By accepting the affordable segment as the territory of laboratory-grown diamonds, both categories could increasingly coexist, each occupying a different market position. Such an arrangement might reduce commercial tensions and contribute to the growth of the overall diamond business.
From the perspective of a trading hub supporting both categories, such as DMCC, that could be an attractive outcome. But growing the diamond business and growing natural diamond demand are not necessarily the same mission. A strategy that serves one may not serve the other.
Are we proposing a strategy to rebuild demand for natural diamonds, or one that facilitates the coexistence of two competing categories?
The Strategic Cost of Surrender
Voluntarily surrendering the affordable segment carries a strategic risk of its own.
Laboratory-grown diamonds are already competing for consumers across different purchasing occasions. The natural diamond industry cannot prevent that expansion simply by defending the market below $3,000.
But why should it make the process easier?
By publicly signalling that the affordable segment is no longer a strategic priority, the industry risks giving laboratory-grown diamonds greater visibility in jewellery stores, fewer competing natural diamond alternatives and more opportunities to establish purchasing habits among younger consumers. Over time, this could strengthen their position not only in the affordable market, but also in higher-value purchasing occasions.
The affordable market is not simply a price category. It is also a point of entry into the wider diamond jewellery market.
The question is not whether the laboratory-grown diamond market will continue expanding. It will. The question is why the natural diamond industry should voluntarily help laboratory-grown diamonds consolidate their position in the affordable market.
Today’s affordable natural diamond buyer may become tomorrow’s premium customer. Even if laboratory-grown diamonds introduce new consumers to the wider diamond category, there is no guarantee that they will eventually choose natural diamonds. By stepping back from that first relationship, the industry risks weakening one of the pathways through which future demand for premium natural diamonds can develop.
Two Strategies, Two Different Ambitions?
This brings us to a potential tension between the recommendations of The Swiss Parallel and the strategic repositioning initiated by The Diamond Collective.
In its September 2026 strategy presentation, A Shared Ambition for the Future of Diamonds, The Diamond Collective defines its ambition in remarkably simple terms: “More people choosing natural diamonds. More often.”
Its strategy goes beyond creating cultural relevance. It aims to turn consumer desire into demand, strengthen retail partnerships and generate measurable commercial growth across the natural diamond category. By contrast, The Swiss Parallel recommends that natural diamonds deliberately and permanently cede the commodity tier to laboratory-grown diamonds and concentrate on premium positioning.
One strategy seeks to broaden consumer participation in natural diamonds. The other proposes narrowing the market in which they actively compete. These ambitions are not necessarily incompatible, but they raise an important strategic question.
If The Diamond Collective’s ambition is to encourage more people to choose natural diamonds, more often, should the industry simultaneously endorse a strategy that permanently abandons part of the market where those first purchases might take place?
Until that question is answered, endorsing a permanent retreat from the affordable market would be premature.
Who Decides the Future of Natural Diamonds?
The most consequential words in The Swiss Parallel are not “commodity tier” or “premium positioning.”
They are “deliberately and permanently.”
The authors are not simply recommending a temporary adjustment to changing market conditions. They are proposing a lasting redefinition of where natural diamonds should compete.
That is a much bigger decision than reallocating a marketing budget. And it raises a fundamental question: who has the authority to decide that an entire segment of the natural diamond market should be permanently surrendered?
DMCC can recommend it. Martin Rapaport can advocate premium positioning. The Diamond Collective can determine how to allocate its marketing resources. But none of them can determine what individual consumers will value or what independent jewellery businesses should offer.
Even as a recommendation, it will shape what the industry does, which is why it deserves a decision, not a drift.
The report itself asks how such a withdrawal could be coordinated rather than undertaken unilaterally. That question deserves an answer before the industry commits itself to permanently withdrawing from the commodity tier.
Earlier this year, ahead of the World Diamond Congress in Singapore, I proposed a series of dedicated strategic meetings bringing together senior industry leaders. Those discussions never materialised. The need has only grown since.
I have since refined that proposal into a more specific one: a closed-door strategic retreat bringing together the natural diamond industry’s most senior decision-makers. The Kimberley Process Plenary in New Delhi (30 November–4 December 2026) offers the occasion: the retreat should be held immediately before or after it.
Not another conference. Not another panel discussion. Not another report.
Six to eight leaders. Two or three days. No distractions. One objective: to establish a shared strategic vision for rebuilding natural diamond demand.
Because before deciding which markets to surrender, the industry must first decide what it is prepared to defend.
About the author:
Nicolas Chrétien is a brand builder and strategist, creative leader, and founding member of the World Diamond Heritage Board (WDHB). With more than 35 years of experience in strategy, branding, and innovation, he has worked across luxury, consumer goods, and consulting, with a particular focus on natural diamonds, fine jewellery, and heritage-driven projects. Widely recognised for his creative, out-of-the-box thinking, he is known for developing unconventional frameworks that bridge strategy, marketing, creativity, and long-term value. Based in Singapore, he is actively involved in shaping future-facing frameworks for the diamond industry through WDHB initiatives.
Social media detail: https://www.linkedin.com/in/n-chretien/
Articles about World Diamond Heritage Board (WDHB) and Nicolas Chrétien:
https://gem-spectrum.com/tag/world-diamond-heritage-board
