Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Business Ethics Question

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.

DBM

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
404
Curious to know people''s opinion. The question''s not limited to diamond per se of course. It could apply to any market.

We readily recognize a certain market price "range" of price for products (let''s say a 1 ct G VS2 for arguments sake). We also intuitively would agree i think that for a vendor to sell to a consumer at significantly inflated price over and above the "standard market price" would be dong some unethical towards the consumer market.

My question is does such a concept apply towards a vendors fellow associates in the vendor market going the other way i.e. selling at prices at or near cost (say the guy has a penchant for going broke, whatever, its hypothetical anway). Is it ethical for a vendor to enter into an industry and choose to sell his goods at or near his cost thereby undercutting, pressuring, and disturbing the normal profit margins of associate vendors in the business? What do you think?

btw i''m not asking what is done, i know what is done. i''m not asking about ideology of free market capitalism either. I''m asking in terms of ethics.
 

JulieN

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 25, 2005
Messages
13,324
Neither situation is unethical to me....

Though shalt not undersell nor oversell?
 

Regular Guy

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jul 6, 2004
Messages
5,951
Date: 1/10/2007 6:46:52 PM
Author:DBM
We also intuitively would agree i think that for a vendor to sell to a consumer at significantly inflated price over and above the ''standard market price'' would be dong some unethical towards the consumer market.
I agree with JulieN, really...that it''s not a question of ethics. Tiffany is not unethical for selling above what others charge...they are getting more $ because of the market value they''ve earned...and therefore, people will pay the differential, willingly enough.

In your example, it is not an ethical question stopping vendors from doing this...it''s anticipated lack of success. Guys selling houses, likewise, would up the price if they could, but can''t so they don''t.

It''s not practical...not a question of ethics to me. Likewise, I did like the term...I think it was...practical...that Serg had used in an earlier iteration of his cut grading system for scoring girdle treatments.
 

KimberlyH

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
7,485
I don''t think it''s an issue of ethics either. Businesses have the right to sell their products at whatever price they see fit, consumers have the right to purchase or not purchase said products based on price. I think the only case in which I would see this as an ethical issue is if the business owner had no competition and the consumer had no choice but to purchase from him or her.
 

aljdewey

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 25, 2002
Messages
9,144
Agree with Julie as well....not unethical at all.

Vendors are independents.....they each work for themselves and eah set their own prices. If anything, it would be the opposite......unethical to work in collusion with others to stifle fair market.

If vendors overprice their product, they won't be able to sustain business in the long run because others will get their business.

If vendors underprice their product, they won't be able to sustain business because they won't make a profit and will lose money.

The market dictates the range of acceptable pricing is, and it's up to each vendor to figure out if they want to offer premium services at a higher price or focus on being the lowest price in town.
 

CaptAubrey

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Mar 28, 2004
Messages
863
I don''t think this issue is as black and white as some of you are making it. It''s not just an issue of pricing but also transparency.

In the abstract, as long as it''s merely a question of pricing--and not misrepresentation--I don''t think it''s unethical to price anything "too high" or "too low," as long as buyers have access to sufficient information to determine what a fair price would be. This isn''t the case with all goods. Consumers can easily determine fair market value for things like cars and stereos; it''s much harder with diamonds.

In an industry that is as lacking in proper transparency as the diamond business, it''s far too easy to get consumers to believe in your business model--no matter how far out of DBM''s "range" you may be--because most of them feel they have to find "someone they trust" rather than making their own judgments. And even the consumers who want to educate themselves face a lot of challenges in comparing one diamond to another.

IMO, at least in this business, it can be unethical if you are a) pricing things very highly without offering any added value beyond a smooth, trustworthy facade, or b) pricing things very low with the intent of making consumer think your competition is ripping people off--though not necessarily.

Note that the FTC considers predatory pricing to be an unfair trade practice, though it''s considered on a case-by-case basis.
 

RockDoc

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Aug 15, 2000
Messages
2,509
Date: 1/10/2007 8:07:01 PM
Author: CaptAubrey
I don''t think this issue is as black and white as some of you are making it. It''s not just an issue of pricing but also transparency.

In the abstract, as long as it''s merely a question of pricing--and not misrepresentation--I don''t think it''s unethical to price anything ''too high'' or ''too low,'' as long as buyers have access to sufficient information to determine what a fair price would be. This isn''t the case with all goods. Consumers can easily determine fair market value for things like cars and stereos; it''s much harder with diamonds.

In an industry that is as lacking in proper transparency as the diamond business, it''s far too easy to get consumers to believe in your business model--no matter how far out of DBM''s ''range'' you may be--because most of them feel they have to find ''someone they trust'' rather than making their own judgments. And even the consumers who want to educate themselves face a lot of challenges in comparing one diamond to another.

IMO, at least in this business, it can be unethical if you are a) pricing things very highly without offering any added value beyond a smooth, trustworthy facade, or b) pricing things very low with the intent of making consumer think your competition is ripping people off--though not necessarily.

Note that the FTC considers predatory pricing to be an unfair trade practice, though it''s considered on a case-by-case basis.
As usual the Capt is very correct here.

I think adding a several other consideration here bear mentioning.

A. Morals. While maybe distantly related to ethics, some of what you mention DBM might fall under that category.

B. Dishonesty .. If the appearance of low pricing is coupled with misrepresentation which DOES occur in many businesses, it''s unethical, immoral and dishonest, and in some cases add illegal to the mix to in extreme situations.

C. INTENT .... Here is the measuring stick of ethical conduct. With this category comes Ommission. Omitting facts about what your selling, is just as bad as misrepresenting in many scenarios.

I think however ETHICS can vary based sometimes on traditional trade practices. In some cultures, pricing high with the intent of negotiating is an accepted way of doing business, and thus it is an ethics issue. In other cultures that might be the exact opposite and considered unethical.

Rockdoc
 

kcoursolle

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 21, 2006
Messages
10,589
I agree with others who have said that this is not really an ethical question. I think it''s more of an issue of disliking elements of capitalism and the market.
 

kenny

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
28,189
Whatever the market will bear.



Hey, this reminds me of an ad:

"We lose money with each sale - but we make it up in volume."
 

RockDoc

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Aug 15, 2000
Messages
2,509
Date: 1/10/2007 9:56:44 PM
Author: DBM
Saddens me to hear how so many of you do not see this as relating to ethics.... truly saddens me....
HI DBM.......

Let''s flip the coin here....

What code of conduct ( ethics ) would you feel that competitive pricing violates?


I don''t say this to be critical of you.... but the point you seem to be making is that your sore, that a competitor can undersell you.

When you go to buy things as a consumer, don''t you look for the most advageous deal or price?

I think your position stem from a seller''s viewpoint. Think of it on the consumer''s side of the scales of balance.

Possibly you''ll elaborate on your point.

As I wrote before what you''ve mentioned might be not the best moral position / it could "ride the curb of dishonesty", but ETHICS is different.

I do have a lot of ethics books which I can quote from.

Rockdoc
 

tuanle55

Rough_Rock
Joined
Dec 1, 2006
Messages
30
I don't see anything unethical for my competitions to undercut me completely. It may hurt me in the short run but if I run my business well, the competitions can't continue undercutting me forever without doing much harm to themselves. Selling things in volumes to make up for smaller margins is a tremendous amount of work. I rather sell less things at higher margins. If it benefits me to undercut my competition and I can accept the increase work, I certainly will do it also. Why would you consider your competition's feeling for or calling them associates or associates vendors. They're simply your competitions. You do what is in the end in your best interest. So if undercutting your competitions ultimately hurts yourself also, then yes it's not a good idea. But definitely doesn't mean that you can fix price with other vendors either. I don't think it's a question of ethics but more of business sense and staying in business. Isn't it something like 9/10 businesses fail.

I don't understand the point you are driving at DBM. Why don't you tell us specifically what has prompt you to start this thread?
 

DBM

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
404
In all honesty, i don''t have the energy to type out and explain the entire philosophical, ideological and yes mathematical logic (it''s related to game theory in that a large sudden upheaval in the standard B&M stores would ultimately hurt everyone collectively) of the way i see it. I guess if i''d have to condense everything i''d explain as such:

beyond the interest of the consumers and beyond the interests of the vendors is a thing called "us". and "us" should think in terms of "us". that means that if i can enter the market and start selling diamonds at cost price indefinitely (say i''m a billionaire and i''ve got nothing better to do than to ruin the livelihoods of everyone in the industry) it is still a wrong thing to do because while the consumer buying a diamond may benefit, the thousands of vendors in the industry-- who have mortages and families and employees and a million other things that set their standard of living at a certain level and they in turn recycle their expenditures on a million other industries that are out there-- will have their lives rudely awakened in a very short time not allowing them a proper time to "readjust" to the situation. I''m not against change but in needs to be transitioned smoothly. Fast, sudden, unnatural spikes in the market ultimately hurt the "us". Not just the vendors but ultimately the consumers too (this is where even from a mathematical standpoint of game theory it''s wrong i feel)

of course this only makes sense if you feel we should care about other people but of course if you''re talking in terms of pure capitalism and darwinian evolution there''s nothing wrong at all. Every man for himself and let the last man standing win. That''s a worldview minus the "us". Minus a sense of Love. Minus a sense of care.

also for the record i''m not sore. If i wanted to undercut I could very easily. Part of what prompted this issue was losing a customer to a vendor who sold near his cost and made his profit on the mounting. I refused to lower the price out of principle even though had i matched the price my profit margin would have still been double the other vendor''s ( i happen to know what his cost was).
 

DBM

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
404
Date: 1/10/2007 11:59:39 PM
Author: tuanle55
I don''t see anything unethical for my competitions to undercut me completely. It may hurt me in the short run but if I run my business well, the competitions can''t continue undercutting me forever without doing much harm to themselves. Selling things in volumes to make up for smaller margins is a tremendous amount of work. I rather sell less things at higher margins. If it benefits me to undercut my competition and I can accept the increase work, I certainly will do it also. Why would you consider your competition''s feeling for or calling them associates or associates vendors. They''re simply your competitions. You do what is in the end in your best interest. So if undercutting your competitions ultimately hurts yourself also, then yes it''s not a good idea. But definitely doesn''t mean that you can fix price with other vendors either. I don''t think it''s a question of ethics but more of business sense and staying in business. Isn''t it something like 9/10 businesses fail.

I don''t understand the point you are driving at DBM. Why don''t you tell us specifically what has prompt you to start this thread?
maybe the example i gave of selling diamonds at near cost and adding extra profit margins on the mountings gives a better perspective of the kind of thing i''m talking about.

i agree with you in the sense that "if business can be operated at that level of volume and profit margin then why not have it change to that" but i don''t agree in executing that change irresponsibly with no caution to the disastrous effects it can have on the market as a whole.
 

RockDoc

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Aug 15, 2000
Messages
2,509
Daniel

You''ve changed the chessboard. He lowered the price of the diamond and made a profit by selling the ring. So he didn''t give the "complete sale" transaction at his cost.

Did the customer discuss the price of the mounting with you? If he did, and you quoted a price for the diamond that was over his price, what was the price that you offered mounting? More than his? Same as his? or Less than his?

If the customer didn''t ask you about the mounting and it was just a sale for a stone in your consideration, maybe you need to rethink your selling strategy.

As for the "billionaire" losing money, while existence of such is possible, it certainly isn''t probable. Granted there are rare instances such as Gates receiving all the charity money from Buffet, but scenarios like that one are extroadinary to the "norm". Billionaires generally don''t have an interest in losing money.

Buffet does own a couple of jewelry companies, yet I don''t hear of anyone complaining about the margins he charge, whether they are competitive or not.

But even if someone did what you describe, selling at cost, and losing money since their overhead isn''t covered, isn''t unethical. I would possibly call that, maybe more properly FOOLISH AND STUPID. But in a democracy, people can basically set the standard of what they wish to do.


However, in your scenario this is a current and constant reality with the retail market on the internet. Stones sold very competitively, but "reasonable" markups maintained when they sell jewelry as part of the sale. Sometimes mark ups are very low, and only a diamond is sold. I''ve seen this many times. But if that seller wants to do the extra work, and make a small markup that is just a fact of life, and business.



How many businesses selling various items, "give" something away saying its free? In this example saying something is free, when it is only "free" if you buy something else, I would consider unethical. It is a misleading form of market that smacks in the face of deception, because the "free" item really isn''t free. It is "Conditionally Free" and our legislators should require that statement when such an item is marketed that way.

Perhaps you feel this is unethical, but in a geographic place where this level of conduct is accepted, it just isn''t unethical. Don''t misunderstand me, I feel for the stuggle that sellers are in. As a former retailer, I saw this coming years ago, and "reinvented" myself. I found a better "mousetrap" (at least for me) in not selling and just doing evaluation and appraising.

Maybe you need to reinvent yourself, if you really feel as sensitive about this as it appears you do.

Perhaps you need to find an item to sell that is "price controlled". I think coffee prices are somewhat regulated, and most states have price standards for milk.

Rockdoc
 

Kaleigh

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 18, 2004
Messages
29,570
Don''t take this the wrong way, but your post isn''t about ethics, it''s about being beaten out of a sale or sales. What the competition does is all fair, they are not your asscociates. Vendors may undercut their prices and do so when the situtation is right. It''s their business and not your''s. Their being solvent is probably the last thing on your mind, and vice versa. It''s business, they have to make a living just as you do. I am sorry if I misunderstood your point. Didn''t really get it to begin with.... I mean that nicely!!!
 

DBM

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
404
RockDoc -- I feel like you''re beating around the bush talking about the probability of a warren buffett ever doing what i said or "reality" of the fact that this is business and "that''s what can be done". I was very clear on my question: what do you think about it ethically/morally. Why do you seem to be so averse to taking a moral position on this?

forget my scenario. forget my bias. forget my situation. I asked an abstract question and it seems to be impossible to get a straightforward answer. I''m not asking about facts of life. I''m not asking about what''s "business". I''m asking how you gauge it ethically.

kaleigh- i''m not offended yoiu''re just being honest which leaves me to feel if the concept i''m espousing is so far out there that no one can even relate to the thought process i guess i''m better off just withdrawing the entire discussion.. so maybe i''ll just drop it... nm then
 

DBM

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
404
for the record though, captaubrey mentioned it as well (and i enjoyed your post btw as well, thx), there is a concept of predatory marketing which is prohibited. Not that i necessarlity would take the FTC as my ethical gauge but atleast someone out there can conceive of what i'm talking about :)
 

Adylon

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Nov 14, 2006
Messages
232
I've found this topic to be very interesting. I think any vendor competing on price only will enivitably lose, because it's just a poor way to run a business. There's always going to be someone cheaper, and cheaper is not always better, especialy when you sacrifice service or quality. If they're trying to say "Don't buy from Vendor X, he is evil and robbing you blind with his high margins," I think that's immoral. Vendor X may be adding a lot of service/quality to that transaction that the undercutter will not provide. Like others said the act of undercutting or killing margins in an industry is not immoral, it's just capitalism. But when the undercutter acts in a way to decieve his customer by equating his service or quality to the other vendors, I think that's immoral.

There are 3 basic things that a vendor can offer.... quality, service and value. When you have a very high value (cheap price) quality or service have to be lower (think Walmart). When you have very high quality and service, value is usually lower (think Tiffany). It's up to the consumer to decide what level of quality, service and value they want, and any vendor who says they offer all 3 better then all their competitors is lying to you, and yes, that is immoral. You can't be Walmart and Tiffany at the same time, it's impossible :)
 

Regular Guy

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jul 6, 2004
Messages
5,951
Daniel,

Before agreeing to let it rest...(I''ll stand more or less by my position above, as well as the follow through by Rock Doc), I''ll support you first. For example...on the sort of concerns you raise, municipalities have chosen to outlaw big box stores (Costco, etc) into neighborhoods, in order to help protect smaller merchants. Likewise, some governments will institute rent control in order to protect some from the outcome of "what the market will bear." Isn''t it on the basis of some sort of ethical concern government will do this.

Well, even then, the protection is designed to be "practical," but...when done well...isn''t ethics just a matter of being practical, but by, as you say, throwing light on a circumstance not so otherwise visible? In your case, still, hard to see how this application will apply to someone next door making their margin on item "b," and even Costco must consciously decide to have loss leaders...selling beef and chicken bakes and other things dirt cheap, while doing better on other products, purchased on a whimsy.

The recent growth of Blue Nile, and calculations documented here in the article shared, showed how the evolution of this can work, and without malice, or ill intent. Though BN as an example, unless internet sales is something government too will disallow, can speak to the practical roll out of the market...again...it does not seem to address the turns of your experienced example.

Well, so, before dropping it, then, wanting to add a small bit of support, however small.

Regards,
 

diagem

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
4,936
Date: 1/10/2007 6:46:52 PM
Author:DBM
Curious to know people''s opinion. The question''s not limited to diamond per se of course. It could apply to any market.

We readily recognize a certain market price ''range'' of price for products (let''s say a 1 ct G VS2 for arguments sake). We also intuitively would agree i think that for a vendor to sell to a consumer at significantly inflated price over and above the ''standard market price'' would be dong some unethical towards the consumer market.

My question is does such a concept apply towards a vendors fellow associates in the vendor market going the other way i.e. selling at prices at or near cost (say the guy has a penchant for going broke, whatever, its hypothetical anway). Is it ethical for a vendor to enter into an industry and choose to sell his goods at or near his cost thereby undercutting, pressuring, and disturbing the normal profit margins of associate vendors in the business? What do you think?

btw i''m not asking what is done, i know what is done. i''m not asking about ideology of free market capitalism either. I''m asking in terms of ethics.
Business is business...
Everyone sleeps in the bed they make up...
Some large Companies chose to market their goods this way... (usually its based on added value that is translated to big volume.)
Some small Companies chose to add value to their product that big Companies wouldnt even think about since they are in the business of selling volume!!!

Since you gave the Diamond industry as an example, this industry is changing with the speed of light.
It looks like its is shifting from a "primitive" environment (the way this industry worked for Centuries!!!) to a pure PROFESIONAL business.

The good news is: Small businesses with big ideas will beat huge businesses with small ideas!!!!!

In my opinion, your question has nothing whatsoever to do with "Ethics", but we are witnessing a fact these days that Big Diamond Corp''s that their only power is Financial Power is starting to prove itself as a flop, see some of the examples of the last couple of years (and i will not mention names..).

Todays Jewelry market is not about volume ONLY, prove to it is the multiplying number of small designer jewelers that come up with great products and niches that attract consumers like magnets..., Marketing your product the right way is KEY!!! In today''s business world it is a MUST to be creative!!!
 

strmrdr

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 1, 2003
Messages
23,295
What your complaining about is the Internet race to the bottom.
In 5 years 90% of them will be gone and prices will stabilise.
Those that race the quickest to the bottom will be the first ones to die.
If you look at the most successful PS vendors they aren't the cheapest ones.
They found a market and a product to set themselves apart from the crowd.

Blue Nile set themselves up as a massive mass marketer with a lot of $$$ backing.
I don't expect them to make it 10 years.

WF,GOG,Wink,diamondexpert.com,Niceice and Pearlmans are all specialty shops with unique services and products.
JA is someplace in the middle after he moved from the mass marketing niche of DCD.
They will make it 5 years and 10 years.

The vendors that list stones on the PS search at 4% margins will be toast in 5 years as will anyome else that plays in that area.

The better of the locals in my area are doing very very well with new and better locations being built and the 3rd generation taking over.
The total number of independents has been cut in half but most of them retired and moved to Florida with enough money to live on.
 

denverappraiser

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Messages
8,749

Designing a better business model that does a better job of delivering goods and services to the customers is not only ethical, it’s both desirable and inevitable. Many discount and internet dealers have several inherent efficiencies that allow them to offer lower prices to customers. These are neither charities nor fools (well most of them anyway), they are trying to make a buck by offering a different bundle of benefits to consumers for a different price. I see no problem at all with making the offer or with customers accepting it if they find it desirable.



The collective welfare of the industry is no more a valid argument than the welfare of wheelwrights, blacksmiths, icemen, cobol programmers and hundreds of other industries where the customers in the market have decided that their goods and services are no longer what’s required. When underemployed blacksmiths found their market deteriorating because of the industrial revolution, they were presented with 2 basic choices. They could find other work or they could find a specialty niche where their skills still applied. For individual smiths, I’m sure this was a difficult process and I’m sure some came through it poorly. Others did very well by it. There are still highly paid blacksmiths after all. For people with the skills, it actually turns out to be a pretty good job catering to customers who value the difference that they offer. Others may have found their true calling in something in a completely different career that they never would have discovered had they spent their time handmaking horseshoes.


Life is a journey, not a destination.


Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver
 

colorkitty

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
220
How can undercutting be unethical? Consumers shouldn''t be allowed to get a great price because it might hurt someone''s profit margin? It''s perhaps a little selfish of a business to complain that people don''t have to pay their inflated prices anymore because someone''s undercut them. If a business cannot exist without offering customers a decent price, or some service to make the mark up worth it, it needs to closing its doors to its business model. What''s unethical is keeping the prices high because a business would rather rake over their customers than put a little heat on their competitors. Yes, jewelers have mortgages they need to pay. Customers pay them.

All this talk about "us" and caring about each other-- who cares about the customers? And with collusion, who protects the customers? Do businesses have an ethical commitment to one another or to their customers?

I agree it''s an ethics issue. And suggesting that businesses shouldn''t set competitive prices is wholly unethical.
 

strmrdr

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 1, 2003
Messages
23,295
Want a breakdown of how they do it?

WF - strength of the ACA product and custom setting offerings. An efficient back end with a customer service oriented front end. The most corporate of the ones I will discuss. Smartest marketing move: hiring John to help out here and represent them on the forums.

GOG - GOG deals in information, Moves quickly to support new markets, B&M base that provides stability. Strength is product selection and quality.

Wink - Wink is Wink, First and closest to his heart a successful B&M he has turned personality and contacts and business savvy into a one man success story. He will make it as long as he wants too.

diamondexpert.com - Gary is Gary, laid back and just an all around good guy. Good contacts and good service, He too will make it as long as he wants too.

Niceice:
At heart a b&m continues to provide great products with great service.
They will be selling diamonds as long as they want to be.

Pearlmans - designer and custom settings one stop shop with enough contacts on the diamond side to be a player. A successful b&m expanded to the net.

Want to copy them? Don''t bother a lot of people have tried and failed, find your own niche and market.

If someone asks you what sets you apart from your competition and the answer is price your doomed.
 

mepearl53

Shiny_Rock
Trade
Joined
Apr 14, 2004
Messages
355
Date: 1/11/2007 12:46:06 AM
Author: DBM


beyond the interest of the consumers and beyond the interests of the vendors is a thing called ''us''. and ''us'' should think in terms of ''us''. that means that if i can enter the market and start selling diamonds at cost price indefinitely (say i''m a billionaire and i''ve got nothing better to do than to ruin the livelihoods of everyone in the industry) it is still a wrong thing to do because while the consumer buying a diamond may benefit, the thousands of vendors in the industry-- who have mortages and families and employees and a million other things that set their standard of living at a certain level and they in turn recycle their expenditures on a million other industries that are out there-- will have their lives rudely awakened in a very short time not allowing them a proper time to ''readjust'' to the situation. I''m not against change but in needs to be transitioned smoothly. Fast, sudden, unnatural spikes in the market ultimately hurt the ''us''. Not just the vendors but ultimately the consumers too (this is where even from a mathematical standpoint of game theory it''s wrong i feel)
DBM, This is not something that has come on over night. It''s now on it''s 12th year but the B&M and supply side of the industry just looked the other way refusing to acknowledge what change was happening below their noses. Early on the businesses that got it applied the business model of MRI Maximum return on investment to the equation. It is more profitable to sell a item at 10% return a 100 times that to apply the antiquated 2.4 turns a year at 50% or more profit. And the internet is the median to do this. Still in it''s infancy and the wild, wild west, it will become a more efficient way to distribute goods and many services.

100 years ago Henry Ford put the buggy mfg. industry out of business. Look around at all of the industries that have changed with new technology and manufacturing ideas. Change is a good thing but our industry is fighting it so hard it has become a negative in many peoples eyes. We''re a B&M business that is thriving on the net. This is our 11th year and we have a healthy store business and net business. When we started everyone thought we we crazy and pointed out all of the things we could not do on the net. Well, guess what? We can and it''s more efficient. The clientele is better informed and asks the right questions. Business is actually much more easy and the customers a pleasure to deal with.

I see by your address 4th floor 47th St. Are you a wholesaler? Is it ethical for you to be offering your goods to the consumer? Do you not have B&M customers? What would they think. On the net we compete with one of our major suppliers of diamonds. Is this ethical and moral? I guess not for if it was it would not be done. Do I care? Nope! I just become better and change as the markets dictate which would be a huge lesson for any of the B&M stores lurking on this site. It can be done you just have to develop a niche. Selling diamond studs and 5 stone rings is not a niche but that is what you see on most internet site. So sell those and something unique to you (this is for the B&M''s)

We''re located in Michigan home of the auto industry. Do you know how many jobs have been lost here because of market change. Toyota seems to be doing record business the the big 3 are loosing billions. Why? Change. Not ethics, morals, or any other reason. They refused to respond to a market that was in transition and it did not happen over night.

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
 

DBM

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
404
i''m just going to try one more approach to convey the question i was asking and then i''m done. I appreciate what everyone is saying truly but you''re still not getting the question, so let''s abstract:


I''m a multi-billiionaire. I have enough money to buy diamonds at cost and sell them from a range of $1- $100 (so as to give some differentiation for the various 4 Cs) and i can do this indefinitely. Why am i doing this? because i''m crazy, because i WANT to, more imporatantly-- IT DOESN''T MATTER. please, PLEASE, dont'' bog me down with arguments of "it''s not economical", "it''s not practical", "I''m a crazy idiot" -- this is a hypothetical question so please enter my world of fantasy for a moment, ok?? humor me.

Now i think everyone would agree that relatively quickly within say 10 yrs everything would be gone, no? all the online, all the B&M, probably alot of sightholders.. NOW the questions I''m asking (and these are THE ONLY QUESTIONS I''m ASKING): My choosing to spend all my money in this idiotic fashion and simulataneously destroy the industry: how would you look at me as a person? a good person? bad person? or neither, i have the right but i''m just stupid (which i think is the answer most of you are positioned at, which is what makes me sad).

FURTHERMORE, would you say what i did is ultimately beneficial to the collective whole, detrimental to the collective whole or neither (which i don''t think is really a plausible argument to say neither)?
 

pricescope

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Dec 31, 1999
Messages
8,266
Daniel, this forum is for exchange of useful ideas and getting advise given in a good faith.
Extrapolating to the "nut case rich evil" just for the sake of it and declaring that "you are done with it" scenario does not get anyone anywhere and is disrespectful to the people who tried their best answering you.
 

dhog

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Jan 15, 2006
Messages
159
Date: 1/11/2007 10:18:46 AM
Author: DBM
i''m just going to try one more approach to convey the question i was asking and then i''m done. I appreciate what everyone is saying truly but you''re still not getting the question, so let''s abstract:



I''m a multi-billiionaire. I have enough money to buy diamonds at cost and sell them from a range of $1- $100 (so as to give some differentiation for the various 4 Cs) and i can do this indefinitely. Why am i doing this? because i''m crazy, because i WANT to, more imporatantly-- IT DOESN''T MATTER. please, PLEASE, dont'' bog me down with arguments of ''it''s not economical'', ''it''s not practical'', ''I''m a crazy idiot'' -- this is a hypothetical question so please enter my world of fantasy for a moment, ok?? humor me.


Now i think everyone would agree that relatively quickly within say 10 yrs everything would be gone, no? all the online, all the B&M, probably alot of sightholders.. NOW the questions I''m asking (and these are THE ONLY QUESTIONS I''m ASKING): My choosing to spend all my money in this idiotic fashion and simulataneously destroy the industry: how would you look at me as a person? a good person? bad person? or neither, i have the right but i''m just stupid (which i think is the answer most of you are positioned at, which is what makes me sad).


FURTHERMORE, would you say what i did is ultimately beneficial to the collective whole, detrimental to the collective whole or neither (which i don''t think is really a plausible argument to say neither)?
If you had billions to waste on diamonds maybe you should try a different
way of marketing.

maybe a web site name change like fortunediamonds.com might work

or dbmdistributions.com
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
Be a part of the community It's free, join today!
    5 Diamond Misconceptions: Part 1
    5 Diamond Misconceptions: Part 1
    Three-stone engagement ring upgrade
    Three-stone engagement ring upgrade
    Vintage OEC Bracelet
    Vintage OEC Bracelet

Need Something Special?

Get a quote from multiple trusted and vetted jewelers.

Holloway Cut Advisor



Diamond Eye Candy

Click to view full-size image.
Top