Sydney jewellery fair organiser hits back at JAA

 

The organiser of the International Jewellery Fair is seeking to “set the record straight” in response to the JAA’s announcement that it has ended ties with the event and will conduct its own show.

On Monday 23 May, the Jewellers Association of Australia (JAA) released an industry statement advising it would organise its own fair, the JAA Jewellery Fair, in 2017. The decision marks the end of its 25-year relationship with International Jewellery Fair (IJF) organiser Expertise Events.
“This landmark announcement is being delivered amidst great excitement after detailed research, analysis and discussion by the JAA board and executive director,” the statement read. “The event must meet the needs of the industry into the future, so this is exactly what the JAA is setting out to achieve.”
According to the release, the JAA Jewellery Fair will be held at the Royal Hall of Industries within the Moore Park Precinct in Sydney and will take place from 26–28 August – the same dates scheduled for the 2017 IJF at the newly-developed International Convention Centre at Darling Harbour.

The news came as a shock to the industry, given Expertise Events had been involved with the JAA since the launch of the jewellery fair in 1991.
The JAA statement listed a number of reasons for the decision, including the fact that increased management of the event by the JAA would help to better serve the industry’s ongoing requirements and present initiatives and programs through face-to-face contact.

Selwyn Brandt, JAA president

It also noted that “feedback from many industry participants received in recent years have expressed desire for the JAA to manage the industry fair” and that the decision provided “the opportunity to restore additional benefits for JAA members participating in the fair”.

Further, the release stated: “The JAA is a not-for-profit organisation, meaning it does not need to make the additional profit an outside organiser desires and all JAA profits are reinvested back into members and benefits and the jewellery industry at large.“The JAA will have the control to customise the fair to suit the market from one year to the next, providing greater benefit to small and large suppliers and retailers, students, manufacturers, exhibitors, sponsors and other industry members alike.
“With a JAA managed fair there is now increased ability to liaise with industry participants about the fair and implement their requirements. For example, many smaller-sized businesses find it difficult to justify the cost of exhibiting and one of the JAA’s aims is to attract these industry participants and others who have left over the years back with the new model.”

End of an era

Expertise Events managing director Gary Fitz-Roy released an industry statement on 26 May in an attempt to “set the record straight” on the JAA announcement.
According to the Expertise Events release, titled Fresh unencumbered fair … new opportunities – the facts!, the JAA statement was “glaringly short on detail” and “did not paint the whole picture”.
“Firstly, after a 25-year relationship with the JAA, Expertise Events was given just 24 hours to agree to a list of demands, which has resulted in the JAA announcing its own fair in 2017 and which effectively divides the industry – because it will run on exactly the same days as the traditional Sydney jewellery fair (IJF),” the release read.
This list of demands included an increase in next year’s sponsorship, which would have resulted in “as much as a 300 per cent increase in our costs and fees” as well as adding ‘JAA’ to the name of the event.
In addition, the Expertise Events statement noted that at the same time it was demanding increased payments, JAA membership numbers had been “declining every year” and that it only represented about 20 per cent of the industry.
“What the JAA release also doesn't tell the industry is that not only did it demand an enormous increase in next year's sponsorship and fees, we were given 24 hours to accept the demands,” the statement read.
“It should be remembered that 24 hour deadline was for an event in 2017 – still 18 months away. So why it was imperative to agree to demands within 24 hours is most unusual.

Gary Fitz-Roy, Expertise Events managing director

“Most importantly, the JAA’s press release neglected to state that Expertise Events offered to renew our long-standing agreement of 25 years but could not do so within the 24-hour deadline.”Another salient point highlighted by Expertise Events was that “The JAA release also referred to 'the additional profit of an outside organiser' (implying us) and have since been telling people incorrect amounts paid by us to them.
“The JAA’s own circulated annual reports show that since 2010, Expertise Events has sponsored the JAA to the tune of just under $600,000.
“When you add in other 'contra and kind' benefits such as free exhibition space, seminar rooms and our support of the design awards etc, our total financial support of the JAA is more like $700,000 for the past five years.”
The statement also noted that annual reports would show that over the last 15 years, Expertise Events has paid the JAA just under $1.8 million in sponsorship. Combined with stand space and extras, that figure was said to result in more than $2 million.
“Their [JAA] latest announcement, which divides the industry, seems to be nothing more than a new way of looking for new income but without any detailed plan for what they will do with it, and in the process further dividing the industry,” it added.

The show must go on

Notwithstanding this, the 2016 IJF will still be held in conjunction with the JAA.
Commenting on this year’s event, the Expertise Events release stated: “Our focus is on delivering this year's show in August 2016 and building on last year, which was a great success, and ensuring the independent jewellers have an event of world-class status next year.
“I am sure there will be more to report in the coming weeks but rest assured that we are professionals and will not allow this split to affect the outcome for you at this year's event. In fact it will inspire us to make it even better, as an indication of what we will provide for you in 2017.”
The 2016 IJF will take place from 27–29 August at the Sydney Exhibition Centre @ Glebe Island.

Update – 30 May

The JAA has responded to the Expertise Events release, stating it “strongly refutes” the events outlined.
According to the JAA statement, Expertise Events was contacted about a new agreement on 5 April and was then given a one-week deadline due to an impending board meeting.
It also noted: “The JAA’s financial statements are available to view, by members, on the JAA website. The overall figures show that the JAA board would have been remiss not to have sought further revenue.”
The release stated that dates for the JAA Jewellery Fair were selected “due to industry input that August is the best time of year and the availability of the venue”.
The statement added that the decision to run a JAA-only event had not been taken lightly and considered all areas of the industry.

What does the JAA stand for?

Posted May 17, 2016 | By Coleby Nicholson • Managing Editor

The recent dispute between Pandora and Alex and Ani has again brought into question the relevance of the JAA. COLEBY NICHOLSON says the ‘peak industry body’ needs to rethink its purpose.

What does the JAA stand for? I wonder if you know because I no longer have any idea.
The recent Pandora-Alex and Ani dispute demonstrated to me that the JAA has continued to lose its way and is close to becoming irrelevant. By remaining silent over the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) investigation into Pandora’s anti-competitive behaviour, the JAA seems to stand for nothing. Well, at least nothing important.
I’ll come back to that issue but let’s first attempt to understand the current state of the JAA and what its function is supposed to be.
JAA membership has been declining for several years and current numbers may well be at an all-time low. I can’t recall a period when more retailers and suppliers have abandoned the association by not renewing membership. The JAA refers to such retailers and suppliers as having ‘resigned’.
Not only is the number of resignations quite significant this year but the names of the businesses resigning also tell a sad tale. I know of many people who have resigned after supporting the JAA for decades because they believe that there is no longer any financial benefit, that the JAA’s reason for existing is no longer relevant, and/or because they are tired of petty politics.
The JAA seems to believe the only reason people are abandoning the association is because of the state of the economy and while that is partly true, it’s not the sole reason. In fact, I think this makes up only one small part of the overall decision to not pay membership fees that help fund an industry association.
For example, it hasn’t helped that over the last few years the JAA has damaged its own reputation and in some cases divided the industry. Who could forget foolhardy episodes like the JAA promoting international diamond trading company RapNet? The association effectively advised local retailers to buy from an overseas internet platform rather than support its own members and Aussie diamond dealers.
Yes, this occurred several years ago and yes, the JAA eventually apologised for its thoughtless actions, but it left many people scratching their heads. In more recent times, I have had complaints about a wide range of issues ranging from lack of member benefits through to the cancellation of the 2016 JAA Australasian Jewellery Awards.
While the JAA blamed a lack of industry sponsorship funding for the ‘postponement’ of this year’s biennial design competition, it’s well known that the 2014 awards program was fraught with problems.
Indeed, not only did one sponsor tell me on the night that he would never support the awards again but jewellers who attended, including some entrants, commented that the night was such a shambles they would never go again.
The disappointment about the event continued for weeks so it came as no surprise to me that this year’s awards were cancelled because of a lack of industry support. Nevertheless, the news did come as a surprise to many, with one very disappointed jeweller asking me, “How could the JAA announce the awards in January and then cancel them in February?”
It’s a fair question, as is the question of whether it’s time to review the purpose of the awards … but back to what the JAA stands for.

Stand up and be counted

If there was ever a reason or cause for the JAA to stand up and be counted by the Australian jewellery industry it was during the Pandora-Alex and Ani fight when Pandora threw its considerable weight around to stop jewellers stocking a competitor’s product.
One of the reasons – if not the main reason – for the existence of the JAA is to represent and support independent jewellery stores. The big chains don’t need the JAA and yes, there are also supplier members, but without buyers there can be no sellers and without a vibrant retail sector the need for an industry association falls by the wayside.
Jeweller reported earlier this year that a number of jewellery retailers had lodged formal complaints with the ACCC about Pandora’s anti-competitive behaviour. That is, many small jewellers, including JAA members, complained that Pandora’s actions were unfairly affecting their businesses by disallowing them to stock the newly launched Alex and Ani jewellery range.
Putting aside the complex legal issues surrounding Pandora’s stance, it should be noted that the JAA remained silent prior to and throughout the ACCC’s investigation. It should also be noted that something can be considered anti-competitive but not illegal, and so it was that the ACCC eventually concluded that Pandora’s action did not breach Australian Consumer Law and Pandora’s demands on retailers had not substantially lessened competition.
The ACCC decision meant that Pandora could continue to take action against its competitors, and small jewellers would have to choose between the two products. So what did the JAA do after the ACCC announced its decision?
Nothing! Not a word.
Let me reiterate: this was an industry dispute affecting hundreds of jewellery stores – many of which are JAA members – and the JAA made no comment about the matter prior to, during or even after the ACCC’s findings.
I have covered the Australian and New Zealand jewellery industries for more than a decade and I can’t recall a more important industry-wide issue and yet the JAA had nothing to say. Further to this, the matter is not short term; the negative impact on jewellers is ongoing.

No comment

Why the silence? Well, the JAA’s view is that after various complaints were lodged, nothing it said or did would change the outcome of the consumer watchdog’s investigation and the matter would be reviewed on the basis of law and not the number of complainants.
That might be true – but it misses the point.
The JAA may well have been “disappointed” at the ACCC’s findings and may also be disappointed at Pandora’s actions against its retail members as well as Alex and Ani – another member – but it made no comment to that effect.
As an association that purports to represent its members, why would the JAA not make a statement about the Pandora-Alex and Ani issue given its negative impact on many retailers? The JAA could have come out and informed the industry that it did not support Pandora’s actions to reduce competition and consumer choice, even if those actions were ultimately deemed legal.
It’s a simple matter – either Pandora’s actions were positive for the wider jewellery industry or they weren’t. Consumers should either have the widest choice of jewellery product available to them or they shouldn’t.
What did our so-called ‘peak industry body’ think about this dispute? Who knows!
What’s more, after the ACCC investigation the JAA could have issued a statement along the lines of: “While the JAA recognises that Pandora has not broken the law, we hope that the company will review and cease its policy to restrict choice by retailers and ultimately consumers for the good of the wider industry.”
Pandora would have surely ignored such a statement – it resigned from the JAA this year – but no harm in making your views known, right? It’s like the episode never happened.
A stance from the JAA might not have affected the outcome of the problem in any way; however, the JAA would have been seen as acting for its members. It chose not to do so and was conspicuous in its absence.

Failing to represent

So I come back to my original question: What does the JAA stand for?
According to its website, the JAA’s mission is to be “the peak industry body that represents greater than 75 per cent of industry participants”.
Fail... remaining silent is not representing anything or anyone! Furthermore, with a year-on-year decline in membership – and nothing in sight to reverse that trend – the chance of representing more than 75 per cent of the industry looks almost impossible.
When given the perfect opportunity to stand up and be counted, the JAA went into hiding, so is it any wonder that more and more members are abandoning the association?
The matter gets worse. I note the second item on the JAA’s mission is to be “the first point-of-contact for thought leadership”.
Apart from the fact that the use of weasel words (managerial drivel) such as ‘thought leadership’ has increasingly crept into JAA vernacular, I ask: If the JAA wants to be seen as a thought leader (whatever that is!) why did it not lead and tell us what it thought?
Think about it – it was the JAA that listed its two most important aims as wanting to represent more than 75 per of the industry and as being recognised as ‘thought leaders’, yet when offered a prime opportunity to be seen as fulfilling both of its own aims, it remained silent.
I’m reminded of the legal saying, “Not only must justice be done; it must also be seen to be done.” The JAA was seen to be doing nothing.
Another of the JAA’s aims is to be “recognised and respected as an organisation for excellence and trusted leadership of the jewellery industry”.
Readers will conclude for themselves whether the JAA’s silence demonstrates leadership of any kind and whether its silence is to be respected. Jewellers will also continue to vote with their membership wallets as to whether the JAA represents anyone or anything.
Not one known for staying silent, I’d like to leave you with my thoughts: on current trends, it would seem that each year, more people lose respect for the JAA compared with those who see it as a body that offers benefits or takes principled stands, and that’s a shame.
Before it takes umbrage at this view and before it jumps in to shoot the messenger, as it’s often prone to do, if the JAA requires further proof that the large membership drop-off has little to do with the economic climate it need only turn to its own website.
A page headed ‘Loyal long-term members’ displays businesses that have held membership for 10 or more consecutive years; however, the list is not current.
Sadly, the page includes a long list of well-known names – some with 20 to 30-year memberships – who have since abandoned the JAA by ‘resigning’. That has little to do with the economy, which leads us to wonder whether it speaks volumes for the JAA’s relevancy.
+++

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Coleby Nicholson • Managing Editor

Managing Editor • Jeweller Magazine

The 24.18 Carat Cullinan Dream

Christie’s will sell the Cullinan Dream on June 9, the 24.18 carat is the largest fancy intense blue diamond ever offered at auction.

The diamond will headline the Christie’s New York Magnificent Jewels auction. Hot on the heels of the May 18 sale of the Oppenheimer Blue, which sold for $57.5 million USD, setting a new record for any jewel at auction.

Read More at DCLA

JAA NIAC expresses extreme disappointment

The Jewellers Association of Australia’s (JAA) National Industry Advisory Council (NIAC), which advises the JAA Board, has expressed its extreme disappointment with Jeweller magazine.
 
The 17 NIAC councillors represent all states and sectors of the industry.
The unanimous resolution was in response to the article criticising the JAA in the Jeweller online newsletter on 17 May 2016, What does the JAA stand for?
All councillors considered the article to be unreasonable and not in the constructive spirit that should be expected from an industry endorsed publication.
Claims that the JAA had not supported the industry over the Alex & Ani/Pandora issue were ill informed and unreasonable.
The JAA consulted the buying groups and ascertained that a formal ACCC investigation was already underway. JAA Board member and Nationwide Managing Director, Colin Pocklington, advised JAA Executive Director, Amanda Hunter that he had been contacted by ACCC investigators and had provided detailed information on the industry, the issues and reasons for complaints by Nationwide Jewellers’ members.
As a thorough ACCC investigation was already underway, and the JAA had not received any complaints from members, it was decided there was no need for the JAA to also contact the ACCC.
Jeweller did not contact the JAA on the matter to investigate its involvement.
Given the JAA did not receive any complaints from members, and the ACCC investigation was already in progress, the attitude of Jeweller is difficult to understand.
The NIAC were also disappointed that Jeweller’s criticisms of the JAA failed to recognise the numerous projects and initiatives that the JAA has undertaken in the last few years, including:

• Implementation of the Code of Conduct and action taken on complaints received
• Handling in excess of 200 consumer complaints and enquiries in the last 6 months
• Obtaining ACCC approval for, and developing, a retail tenancy database for the southern states
• Submissions and representation to government at State and Federal level on lease reform measures to assist jewellers to reduce rental costs
• Introducing numerous additional member benefits over the last 12 months including online sales training

A more comprehensive list of recent and current JAA initiatives is available on the JAA website.
Several of these projects are expected to result in an increase in membership.
The JAA was not approached by Jeweller for comment on any of the issues raised in the article.
As a result of the article several key industry participants are now questioning their continued support for Jeweller.

Lucara Sells Its 813 Carat Diamond for US$63 Million

Lucara Sells Its 813 Carat Diamond for US$63 Million, the Highest Price Ever Achieved for the Sale of a Rough Diamond.

Lucara, is pleased to announce that the exceptional 812.77 carat, Type IIa diamond recovered from the Karowe mine in Botswana in November 2015, has been sold for US$63,111,111 (US$77,649 per carat).

As part of the sale, Lucara has partnered with Nemesis International DMCC, and retains a 10% interest in the net profit received from the sale of the resultant polished diamonds.

The 813 carat diamond has been named, "The Constellation", in collaboration with our partner. Lucara is a well-positioned diamond producer.

The Company's main producing asset is the 100% owned Karowe Mine in Botswana.

Source: DCLA

2.83 ct Violet diamond

The rough diamond weighing 9.17 carats was recovered in August 2015, and after weeks of assessment, the Argyle Violet was polished down to a 2.83 carat, oval-shaped diamond.

The exceptionally rare diamond will showcase in June at the 2016 Argyle tender. Rio Tinto says the rare violet diamond, the largest of its kind ever found at Australia’s Argyle mine will be up for sale as part of the annual Argyle pink diamonds tender. 

GIA has certified the diamond as a Fancy Deep Greyish Bluish Violet.

Source: DCLA

Flawless blue diamond sells for $42m

The 10.10 carat oval shape, vivid blue diamond flawless diamond sold for $42 Million ( $32 Million USD ) , it took just minutes to hammer at Sotheby’s Hong Kong.
 
The Vivid Blue diamond named the De Beers Millennium Jewel 4 is one of the De Beers Millennium Jewel collection.
The exceptional diamond recovered at a mine in South Africa is the largest diamond of its kind to appear at auction.
The Diamond was purchased by an anonymous telephone bidder at a record price for a gemstone at auction in Asia.

Source:DCLA