Recently The Gems and Jewellery Trade Federation(GJF) launched

the Trust Mark program to help shore up the image of the industry and

give consumers confidence.

The govt. proposed Hallmark was limited to purity of precious metals like gold and silver but what GJF proposes with the trust mark is an all encompassing program which goes beyond just hallmarking.

The trade body has proposed a list of criteria like adhering to Hallmarking standards, transparent consumer policies et al.

A few things stand out as one delves into it and compares it vis-a-vis hallmarking:

Confusion in consumers mind:

At

the onset it is bound to create confusion in the consumers mind

especially when they start thinking of it as equivalent to BIS hallmark

( and/or haven't read this post :) ).

Need for a common playing ground:

GJF

has proposed 3 categories to involve the maximum number of jewellers in

this program. They are: The top jewellers, the preffered jewellers and

the reliable jewellers based on the number of years in the trade,

turnover of the jeweller and area of the retail outfit. This choice of

criteria is inappropriate.

Since this is a new initiative every

jeweller should be given a common playing field. It would be more

appropriate that jewellers be chosen based on their customer relevant

policies. On the other hand it promotes a certain group of jewellers

and has tried to divide the jeweller community based on their number of

years in the industry.

We at Kathana pride in the fact that we

offer a unique 30-Day 100% Money Back guarantee on all our

off-the-shelf jewelry ornaments making us perhaps the only jeweler to

do so. Yet with such unique customer centric practises we cannot enter

the supposed hallowed circle of 'top jewellers' because we are

relatively new to the industry and don't have the requisite floor area.

High fees would be a deterrent:

The

fees are for the top jeweller, the preffered jeweller and the reliable

jeweller is Rs. 6 lac, Rs. 2.5 lac and Rs. 25,000 respectively.

In

fact, its quite ironic that the jeweller community had quite vehemently

advocated against such high fees when BIS implemented hallmarking.

Sure, the trust mark isnt forced as hallmark was but are these high

fees justified.

Lacks teeth:

The GJF's disclaimer: While

stating that a member jeweler has been found to confirm to the strict

standards prescribed by GJF under “Trust Mark”, GJF does not assume nor

is GJF deemed to assume any responsibility whatsoever with regard to

the purity, content or quality of any product sold by such jeweler.Whereas the BIS clearly states:Relies

on clear rules, delegation of responsibilty, only to those who are

certified by BIS and penalties ranging from suspension of license to

heavy fines for clear and persistent violation of rules.Only

when the initiating body of such a program take a stringent stand

against violating jewellers will this initiative gain public acceptance

and hold credibility. Whereas BIS had specified strict

guidelines/action against the violating jeweller GJF is relying on

self-regulation.

So, to end, trust mark intends to go beyond

hallmarking which is good but lacks the teeth in its enforcement . Also

It should be a more democratic system keeping the gates equally open

for everyone.

On a side note:

There is a need for a body similar to Better Business Bureau of America

so that it addresses all the trade and retailing sectors facing

consumers offline or online.