Forever: de Beers and U.S. Antitrust Law Essay

13015 Words Mar 7th, 2016 53 Pages
9-700-082

DEBORA SPAR

Forever: De Beers and U.S. Antitrust Law

Educational material supplied by The Case Centre
Copyright encoded A76HM-JUJ9K-PJMN9I
Order reference F267708
CoursePack code C-788-275379-STU

“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
…show more content…
case centre

Distributed by The Case Centre www.thecasecentre.org All rights reserved

North America t +1 781 239 5884 e info.usa@thecasecentre.org

Rest of the world t +44 (0)1234 750903 e info@thecasecentre.org

Purchased by Kelli McArthur for use on the International Management S401129 CR, at International Organizations MBA, University of Geneva.
Taught by Professor Tina Ambos & Mr Sebastian Fuchs, from 23-Feb-2016 to 24-May-2016. Order ref F267708.
Usage permitted only within these parameters otherwise contact info@thecasecentre.org

REV. SEPTEMBER 06, 2002

700-082

Forever: De Beers and U.S. Antitrust Law

De Beers was accustomed to chaos. The company thrived on it, and had long ago learned to master it. But the millennium posed new challenges — serious challenges with the potential to undermine De Beers’s legendary power and compel a rethinking of its strategy. The millennial campaign was the beginning of this change, an elegant tiptoe into a new kind of diamond market. It was also, though, an innovative legal and political move. For the millennial campaign was centered in the United States, a market that absorbed nearly half the world’s diamond jewelry but also forbade the kind of selling practices upon which De Beers relied. Legally, the entire De Beers group — its officers, its operations, its marketing structure — was in violation of U.S. antitrust law. Legally, then,
De Beers was

Related Documents