When the Netflix documentary Nothing Lasts Forever reached a global audience, it did more than examine diamonds. It reframed how people talk about them. Rather than positioning the film as a verdict on right or wrong, its real influence has been cultural. It accelerated an ongoing shift towards transparency, nuance and personal choice in an industry long shaped by singular narratives.
The documentary arrived at a time when consumers were already questioning inherited assumptions about luxury. Sustainability, ethics, innovation and provenance were no longer fringe concerns. They were mainstream expectations. Nothing Lasts Forever did not introduce these questions, but it gave them a high profile platform, encouraging a broader public to engage with them openly.
Coverage in The Atlantic described the film as less of an exposé and more of a mirror, reflecting the tensions that already existed within modern luxury. Diamonds became a focal point for wider conversations about how value is created and maintained in a world where information is increasingly accessible.
For much of the twentieth century, diamonds were defined by a carefully constructed narrative. That narrative was effective, but it was also narrow. It left little room for alternatives or discussion. The documentary challenged that rigidity by presenting a more complex picture, one in which natural and lab grown diamonds coexist within the same emotional and cultural space.
Importantly, the film did not argue that diamonds themselves are problematic. Instead, it questioned the idea that there is only one valid diamond story. This distinction matters. By opening the conversation rather than closing it, the documentary allowed space for both natural and lab grown diamonds to be understood on their own terms.
Media analysis from BBC Reel noted that the documentary resonated because it aligned with a broader cultural appetite for informed decision making. Viewers were not looking to abandon diamonds, but to understand them more fully.
One of the clearest impacts of the film has been the way lab grown diamonds are discussed. Prior to the documentary, lab grown stones were often framed defensively, described in contrast to natural diamonds rather than as legitimate choices in their own right. After the film, the language shifted.
Scientific clarity has played a crucial role in this change. Resources from GIA have long confirmed that lab grown diamonds are chemically, physically and optically identical to natural diamonds. What changed after the documentary was public awareness. Scientific facts moved from specialist knowledge into mainstream understanding.
At the same time, the film did not diminish the appeal of natural diamonds. For many consumers, the geological history of a natural diamond remains deeply meaningful. The idea that a stone formed over billions of years beneath the earth carries emotional resonance that technology does not replace.
Commentary in The Times Literary Supplement observed that the documentary encouraged viewers to articulate why they value what they value. For some, that meant reaffirming a preference for natural diamonds. For others, it meant embracing lab grown stones. Both responses reflect engagement rather than rejection.
For the natural diamond industry, the documentary prompted reflection rather than retreat. Increased scrutiny has encouraged clearer communication around sourcing, traceability and craftsmanship. Rather than relying solely on legacy narratives, the focus has shifted towards context and transparency.
Reporting from Reuters highlighted how parts of the natural diamond sector responded by strengthening traceability initiatives and refining how provenance is communicated to consumers. This response suggests adaptation rather than decline.
Lab grown diamonds, meanwhile, have benefited from a more confident positioning. They are no longer framed primarily as alternatives. Instead, they are increasingly understood as products of technological innovation that appeal to a specific set of values and priorities.
Analysis from MIT Technology Review has explored how advanced manufacturing is reshaping perceptions of luxury across multiple industries. Lab grown diamonds fit within this broader pattern, where precision and innovation enhance rather than diminish desirability.
A key theme emerging from the documentary’s aftermath is that value is no longer dictated from the top down. Consumers are deciding for themselves what matters most. For some, that is geological rarity. For others, it is technological achievement. In many cases, it is a combination of both.
This shift aligns with wider consumer behaviour. Research discussed by McKinsey & Company shows that modern buyers prioritise alignment with personal values over adherence to traditional status markers. The diamond industry is increasingly shaped by this mindset.
The documentary also influenced how diamonds are discussed in fashion and culture. Coverage has become more measured, moving away from absolutist claims towards balanced exploration.
Editorial features in Vanity Fair have framed diamonds, both natural and lab grown, as symbols whose meaning is defined by context and intention rather than origin alone. This framing reflects how many consumers now think.
At a retail level, the impact has been a more open and confident dialogue. Customers are arriving better informed and more comfortable asking direct questions. This has encouraged transparency and education rather than persuasion.
Exploring contemporary diamond jewellery collections, such as those available through Lily Arkwright, reflects this shift in tone. The emphasis is on supporting informed choice, allowing customers to select stones that align with their values, lifestyle and aesthetic preferences.
The documentary has also influenced engagement ring culture more broadly. Ring selection has become a collaborative process, with couples discussing options openly rather than relying on assumptions.
Sociological analysis referenced by The London School of Economics suggests that shared decision making strengthens emotional investment. In this context, choosing a diamond becomes part of a larger conversation about partnership and identity.
Another outcome of the documentary is a clearer understanding that ethics and innovation are not opposites. Both natural and lab grown diamonds are increasingly evaluated through transparent frameworks rather than emotional rhetoric.
Commentary from Quartz has noted that industries mature when they can hold multiple truths at once. The diamond industry is moving towards that maturity, recognising that different consumers prioritise different values.
Crucially, Nothing Lasts Forever did not strip diamonds of their symbolism. Love, commitment and continuity remain central. What changed is the understanding that symbolism does not require uniformity.
Whether natural or lab grown, a diamond chosen with intention carries meaning. The documentary reinforced that intention matters more than adherence to a single narrative.
As The Economist has observed, informed consumers create healthier markets. By encouraging curiosity rather than compliance, Nothing Lasts Forever contributed to a more resilient and adaptable diamond industry.
Looking ahead, the documentary’s long term impact appears constructive. It did not dismantle the diamond industry. It challenged it to evolve.
Natural diamonds continue to resonate with those drawn to history and rarity. Lab grown diamonds appeal to those who value innovation and control. Both exist within a broader ecosystem defined by choice.
In that sense, the documentary’s legacy is not disruption for its own sake, but clarity.
It helped shift the conversation from what consumers should choose to why they choose it.
And in an industry built on symbolism, that clarity has strengthened rather than weakened the meaning of diamonds themselves.
Diamonds are a girls best friend 
Leave a comment