This case study examines De Beers' strategic marketing practices within the global diamond industry. It compares the De Beers cartel to OPEC, analyzing market leadership, price maintenance, and collusion across both monopolistic structures. The paper then shifts to a competitive strategy scenario, outlining how a new Canadian diamond company might challenge De Beers in export markets through adaptation, customization, and process innovation. A process map for implementing fair trade operations is proposed, culminating in an assessment of De Beers' current operations against five key performance objectives — quality, speed, dependability, flexibility, and cost — in the context of a transition toward ethical and transparent business practices.
The paper demonstrates applied case analysis: it moves from descriptive industry comparison to prescriptive strategy formulation, and finally to operational design. Each section builds on the last, showing how strategic choices (cartel vs. brand-led competition) cascade into operational implications (process maps, governance structures, cost frameworks). This layered argumentation is characteristic of strong business school case work.
The paper is organized into two main questions, each subdivided into parts. Part I of Question 1 addresses cartel comparison and lessons learned. Part II proposes a competitive market entry strategy. Question 2 Part I presents a fair trade process map with governance design. Part II evaluates De Beers' operations against five performance objectives. The structure moves logically from macro-industry analysis to firm-level strategy to operational execution.
The diamond and oil industries are not unique in creating conditions that allow for collusion and price maintenance. High-tech industries — including semiconductor manufacturing, peripherals and PC production, and enterprise software — have all shown the potential to be fertile ground for collusion and price maintenance. Collusion has also been the catalyst for government investigations into the chicken industry in Africa and the United States. For example, collusion by Tyson Foods within its own value chain to keep chicken prices below those of a smaller rival eventually drove that competitor out of business. Collusion in the food industry in Africa is pervasive, driving up food costs in nations where people are already facing food insecurity.
De Beers' successful creation and maintenance of its diamond cartel, enforced through pricing as the primary commercial weapon, closely resembles the cartel structure of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). Understanding how these two cartels operate in parallel offers important lessons for students of strategic marketing and industrial economics.
Each of these cartels' market leadership occurs despite a relatively inelastic demand curve for the commodities they specialize in. Both De Beers and OPEC have maintained dominance across several shared dimensions, which can be analyzed point by point.
First, both cartels are extremely protective of their specific markets, despite each defining those markets somewhat differently. De Beers sees its primary segment as upper-income diamond purchasers, while OPEC considers North America to be its most critical market segment.
Second, both cartels view nationalism as a threat to their ability to maintain control over their served markets. For OPEC, greater nationalism has manifested in the form of gas and oil conservation efforts, the growth of hybrid and electric vehicles, and decisions to open up offshore oil fields along the Eastern and Western coasts of the United States.
Third, both cartels have served as a catalyst for other nations to become aggressively nationalistic in defining their own domestic sources of supply relative to the limited commodities each cartel provides.
Fourth, both cartels have, over time, experienced declining control over the increasingly chaotic buying side of their value chains. For De Beers, the rise of Walmart as one of the most dominant jewelry retailers globally — and its proven ability to enforce pricing and product standards on suppliers — is the most visible sign of how disorganized previously orderly retail channels had become. For OPEC, the buying side of the value chain was tested as many North Americans fundamentally changed their oil and gas consumption patterns in response to fears of escalating gasoline prices.
In the context of this case study, De Beers has found that its buyers are capitalizing on chaos in distribution channels and shopping for the best price, irrespective of the company's branding messages aimed at affluent North American consumers or its attempts to create channel alliances.
Fifth, both cartels manipulate their supply chains and the resulting supply-side economics of their industries, while also attempting to define the precise optimal price on their industry demand curves. Monopolists who run cartels, regardless of product, attempt to control the interaction of both demand and supply in order to determine the intersection of those curves, thereby defining optimal pricing for profit and managing their controlled value chains. De Beers and OPEC have succeeded in keeping their respective cartels functioning by rewarding or punishing members of the industry-wide value chain — effectively a form of forced collusion.
Sixth, monopolies often struggle with imprecise measures of demand and are equally challenged when demand drops or rises exceptionally fast. Rather than relying on demand generation through marketing, monopolists who run cartels attempt to manipulate demand and supply curves until a new optimal price point is reached. Because De Beers and OPEC both own their entire value chains, defining a new artificial — and often inflated — optimal price point is achievable. That price point is then used as an incentive for others to cooperate with the cartel or face financial harm if they do not.
In terms of lessons learned for other companies, the first is to avoid relying purely on the ability to manipulate demand and supply chains and instead focus on building a brand that attracts new customers and retains existing ones. In the De Beers case, branding is a secondary strategy relative to keeping the cartel in place and controlling the industry's value chain — an imbalance that creates long-term vulnerability.
You’re 28% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.