Diamonds are forever
One popular advertisement for engagement rings sponsored by the De Beers Diamond company poses the following question to men planning proposal. "Is two months' salary too much to spend?"
Many suitors take "two months' salary" as an unwritten rule of etiquette and as a measurement stick of how well they've faired in the jewerly aspect of courtship. However, "two Months" is not written in any well-known traditional books on wedding etiquette. It simply seems to be an extremely effective creation of the De Beers company, which controls a large share of the world diamond market.
While wedding rings were traditionally regarded as symbols of vows to lifelong commitment, they today symbolize wealth and, to some, how much the suitor loves his bride-to-be. Givers and recievers of the glimmering oject can be regularly comparing the caret weight, cost, and so on of their "symbols" with friends and family members.
This seem like a clear situation in which the diamond business has violated consumer autonomy by "creating" a new need through exploiting basic human needs to fit in and impress others. For some potential suitors, simply sayig no in the face of social pressures to value his bride-to-be is difficult. Advertiaers would probably respond that they are simply "fulfilling" latent human desire rather than creating them. Indeed, it appears that the "need" or desire to impress peers and the bride-to-be is already in existence.
Question:
Is the prevalence of the belief of the “two months’ salary rule” proof of the power of advertisers to create needs by exploiting human insecurity? Why or why not?
The well-written answer for the selected Case will involve some discussion of the following points:
As the fact pattern points out, the “two-months” rule is not a protocol disclosed by any authority on engagement etiquette.
But the ad tends to portray the “two-months” rule as a normative or standard
It was not adopted as a matter of custom and usage
Rather, custom and usage arises from awareness of the ad.
This is a prime example of the ad railroading the autonomy of consumers to decide what to spend on an engagement ring.
Dependent on resources and attraction to the style and look of the ring.