Diamond brand promises monogamy 100 times more powerful than normal.
(click ad for closer look)The Hearts On Fire® "brand" diamond sells for 15-20% more than other designer diamonds. Why? The cut? The marketing? The marketing? You go ahead and read this in-depth Fortune article about the HOF diamond and discern the answer for yourself. Me, I'm much more interested in discussing this cubic zirconia of a tagline. It even surpasses the audacious DeBeers diamond slogan on copyranter's proprietary Bullshit Geiger Counter. Why not monogamy to the 1,000,000th power? Because that would be ridiculous? (Actually, it's probably because commas are ugly graphic elements.) And is this a guarantee? If my future wife bangs the entire roster of the Manchester United football squad a week after I give her a HOF diamond, do I get 100 times my money back?
Addn: here's a stat for you from that Fortune piece—96% of women "expect" a diamond engagement ring before marriage. That's the best testament to the power of marketing out there.
(thanks much to Alicia for the tip/scan!)
posted by copyranter @ 10:00 AM
17 Comments:
Hahaha - if she's knocking off the WHOLE United team I wouldn't worry about getting your money back - just end it all in a warm bath:
http://z.about.com/d/worldsoccer/1/0/p/2/-/-/carlos-tevez.jpg
Actually that's a good more than "100 times" more powerful - that would be just 100*monogamy. We're talking a whole power function more powerful (if you assume that monogamy is some constant value and 100 is the power it is being raised to). As long as monogamy is > 1, you can bet that 100*monogamy is way smaller than monogamy^100.
thanks andre, of course you're right. and to think, I got a 650 score on my math SAT.
Of course, given the very nature of monogamy, one could easily assume that its given value is only 1. So this entire affair might be for naught.
What are they going to tell us next? A diamond is forever???
I thought it said "mamography"
You're missing the obvious connotation, which is that the diamond is a traditional "Oops, I'm sorry I catted around, Mrs. Bryant" gift.
Ay, there's the rub: "As long as monogamy is > 1 . . ."
If you believe of course that monogamy is of course less than 1, then monogamy^100 is actually *less* than simple monogamy. If monogamy is 1, then monogamy^100 is still 1.
I think we could make very compelling arguments that monogamy is either 1 or less than 1, thus suggesting that the diamonds reduce or have no impact on the incidence of monogamy.
I like your idea anonymous. Let's look at this carefully. The diamond industry certainly has a negative impact -- diamonds themselves have no intrinsic worth, so they don't help relationships outright; on the other hand, they certainly are expensive (bad), many women "expect" them (possibly destructive), and the trade is known to be dirty and often bloody (very bad). Since the effect that diamonds have is to make it less good then, and the relationship is described as monogamy^100, then we know that monogamy has to be < 1.
It only makes sense for monogamy to be positive though. If it were negative, both monogamy^100 and 100*monogamy would be positive (and possibly large), which wouldn't make sense.
Therefore monogamy must be a value between 0 and 1.
If you've caved, or will, to a woman's being sucked into diamond industry marketing, I feel sorry for you.
My answer: start pitching her early on, long before proposal time, re: the evils of diamond industry, which are horrific and well documented, and about why you can't understand why anyone would give thousands (or tens of thousands) of dollars for a pretty rock when you could use that money to put a roof over her head or a buy a CD that would ensure financial security for the two of you. If she agrees, that makes her a rational human and maybe you've got a keeper. If she still prefers the rock to show her friends, think again IMHO. Of course, YMMV.
There's a really interesting article about advertising and the diamond industry here
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/198202/diamond
Not sure of the prevalence of diamond engagement/wedding rings outside the U.S., but a friend from Germany (a woman) once asked, rather tongue-in-cheek, how we Americans knew who went with whom if our wedding bands did not match. Along those lines, and in agreement with JimAtLaw's comment above, everyone can tell that my wife and I "go together"
and i'm trying to figure out how to make it clear to my boyfriend that i specifically do not want a diamond engagement ring when/if we ever get that far.
96% of women "expect" a diamond engagement ring before marriage. That's the best testament to the power of marketing out there.
It's not just women; when my fiance and I went shopping for a ring, it took me hours to convince him that a diamond really was out of the question. "'Diamonds are forever' is DeBeers propaganda. You don't want to pay a hideous markup just for some pretty words, do you?" "Thugs in Africa get money for guns from selling these things, and then they kill innocent people!" "But I don't even like diamonds; I'd prefer a peridot or a ruby. Or maybe an amethyst. Something pretty, anyway" Rinse, repeat.
Er, copyranter: take a good look at that ad. How do you know the other body kissing her is male? Maybe this is really a whole new liberating series for Lapidary Lezzies, the new diamond campaign pitched at rich Dykes out there in Kalyfornicator. ( all good things originate East and trickle ( or Sprinkle, as in Annie ) their way West.
In any event, if correctly viewed, everything is lewd, according to Tom Lehrer, but that is before your time.
Best leave the hole thing alone ( pun intended.)
"Er, copyranter: take a good look at that ad. How do you know the other body kissing her is male?"
Wishful thinking, AvengingAngle. The figure on the left has a (five o'clock shadow)1000.
"Er, copyranter: take a good look at that ad. How do you know the other body kissing her is male?"
"Wishful thinking, AvengingAngle. The figure on the left has a (five o'clock shadow)1000."
some of the dykes round here have 5 o/c shadow...
Post a Comment
<< Home