Question 1

The advertisement by jewelry company De Beers urging men to spend an equivalent of two month’s salary when purchasing an engagement ring for their women is proof that advertisers exploit consumers. The jewelry shop takes advantage of the love prospective men have on their women to implore them to strain too much to buy a ring. The promotional advertisement undertaken by the company forms a yardstick for many men planning to propose. A significant number of me consider the salary equivalent of two months as the unwritten rule of getting a piece of jewelry for their women. It is, however, a fallacy created by the advertiser to hoodwink gullible consumers into purchasing expensive jewelry to gift their women on the day of the proposal. Rae and Wong believe that there is no evidence alluding to the fact that men on the brink of marriage should spend that amount of money on the jewelry (769). The jewelry company has successfully convinced young men all over the world that they should always strive to purchase the highly expensive diamond rings for their spouses. The advertisement is exploitative since it takes advantage of humans’ desire to love and be accepted.

Convincing the men who are trying to propose to spend a fortune is insensitive and against Biblical teachings. Giving jewelry gifts to the women as a sign of lover, however, is a practice entrenched in the Bible. For example, it states that “he (Jacob) brought out gold, silver jewelry, and clothing and gave them out to Rebekah” (Gen 24:53). The verse shows that there is nothing wrong with gifting a spouse with jewelry especially when proposing. The problem is the blatant exploitation the modern society places its consumers. De Beers Company knows that it is human to want valuable and beautiful gifts. Choosing the run the “Two Month’s Salary” advertisement is a clever gimmick to exploit the men planning to get married. Obtaining expensive jewelry for their women is seen as the benchmark for reaching a particular standard of offering gifts.  However, the rules are a mere fabrication of the company as they try to get more people to make purchases of their items.

The importance of wedding rings is traditionally symbolic. The advertisement run by the jewelry seller disapproves this commonly held notion in favor of a commercial approach. The insistence that the cost of the engagement ring should always be two times the monthly salary of the man is a clever plot to ensure that society puts a price on the symbol of love. The advertisement echoes Biblical verses, “in their greed; they will exploit you with false words…”(2^nd Peter 2:3). The words of the ornaments vendor perfectly capture the Bible warnings against the greedy in society. Two months’ worth salary is unreasonable and deeply inspired by greed. Unfortunately, the community seems to adopt the marketing lines as the truth. The result is lofty expectations from the ladies, and a huge burden placed on the men trying to get wives. All these results arise from the constant message by a jewelry seller that misleads with the intention to exploit the gullible masses.

The misleading advertisement monetized what is supposed to be a sacred symbol. Wedding rings portray the beginning of the wonderful institution that is marriage. Unfortunately, with the society hoodwinked into believing that the emblem should get to a certain standard, compare the jewelry with each other. The men feel that they have to struggle to outshine each other so that their women can be proud of their rings. Eventually, it is the jewelry sellers who benefit from the various comparisons made by the women with their friends, neighbors and based on ring quality. Once a specific cost equates these symbolic meanings, it is the seller who benefits from the salient competition of the customers as they try to outshine each other. Not only does the wedding ring lose its symbolic value, but it also exploits the society from an economic perspective.

Question 2

The advertisement and promotion of jewelry interfere with the consumers’ right to be independent. The consumers are bound to compare their rings with those of their peers which influences their tastes as they pursue acceptance and respect. The manufacturers believe that it is within their rights to influence the latent consumer desires to make a profit. The promotional material they choose to propagate, however, encourages the consumers to always compare with each other. Also, the “Two Month’s Salary” dilutes the symbolism of the wedding ring. It no longer becomes a testament of love and joy to a couple, but another commodity on sale. Therefore, the De Beer Company engages in a promotional material that is morally indefensible especially given the gravity of the marriage institution. Also, the rings form part of the souvenirs to the days when the couple was still young and in love. When quantified with money, the choice on what to gift a loved one is also under heavy influence from cash.

Young men of the modern world have the unfortunate influence of losing their right to select a proposal ring which they find appealing without considering its cost. After all, the jewelry company is has impacted on people’s minds that the value of the ring should range at least twice what the man earns monthly. The diamond business has ruthlessly maximized on the insatiable need by humans to feel accepted within the society. Potential suitors find the prospect of their bride saying no to their proposal due to the overbearing social pressures difficult (Rae and Wong 769). The promotion advertisement for jewelry robs the consumers the feeling of being only guided by non-material things when choosing a gift to a partner. Instead, the young man and his potential bride have to find a way of fitting into the needs of the society in which they live. The advertisements by jewelry companies, therefore, continue to monetize precious symbols of human engagement and substitute genuineness with material objects.