Tuesday February 23, 2010

Why They Cried: Day Two

“Why They Cried: Deano”—the second part of a five-part series that will culminate in a Significant Objects auction on Friday—is now up at Fictionaut.

Yesterday, I was wondering what people pay for when they purchase a Significant Object and why, it seems, stories have more value when they are attached to an object. As often happens, I started to see shadows of these questions everywhere. Rob and Josh, of course, have initiated (or pointed to) more ways to parse this than I could ever imagine, from the concept of “story shadows” to classifications of which sorts of stories create the most significance. (In the latter case, it turns out that “sequences” embue objects with more value than “classifications” or “descriptions.” This seems to make a case for plot and/or scene, which suits me fine.)

But the container problem—why people are more likely to pay for intangible things when they are attached to objects—is for real. Over at Digital Book World, for example, there’s been spirited discussion about whether or not publishers have devalued their own content—a discussion that quickly turns to container talk. And Jaron Lanier, in You Are Not a Gadget, proposes something called a “songle”—a “song” in a “dongle”—as a way of re-montetizing incorporeal content. Lanier has some good points about the devaluation of creative works in the digital age, but the songle idea seems nostalgic and, frankly, absurd. Untethering may make content difficult to price and police, but it also makes it incredibly convenient. The Digital Book World discussion, on the other hand, focuses on things like the elimination of DRM, which will make it easier to pay for intangible content. If people can’t have an object, at least they can have convenience and reliability. (This is, in fact, the proposition that helped the iTunes store slow the still significant bleeding of the music industry.)

But there’s nothing particularly convenient about bidding on and purchasing a Significant Object for 30-times the original purchase price. So why do people do it? Some possible factors:

NOVELTY: Call this the Radiohead effect. The band famously offered fans a pay-what-you-wish plan for purchasing their music. It was a huge success, of course, but then Radiohead is already famous and they were the first to do it. There’s reason to believe that this strategy might stop working once the novelty wears off. Interestingly, the average object price actually went up during the second flight of Significant Objects, which suggests that the novelty effect might not have been so significant. But there were mitigating factors. First, the project earned press and gained steam over time. Second, SO 2.0 benefited from …

CHARITY EFFECTS: In the so-called “experimental phase,” the proceeds from Significant Objects auctions went directly to the writers. In the second—and now, the third—phase, they went to charity, which could explain the jump in value. (Rob also suggests that the “upcycling” effects of the project might be a factor, and I think he could be onto something, since repurposing is all the rage.) But I find it amazing that even when the writers were pocketing the loot, objects generated 28-times their purchase price. This is in stark contrast to the perception, in the publishing world at least, that consumers are fantatical about not paying for things. It might just be, instead, that consumers feel justified ripping off corporations, while they would actually like to support writers.

FANDOM: While I can assure you this will have no effect on the sale price of my object, some objects no doubt do well because of the prominence of the author. The same thing that would motivate a reader to go to a book signing might also motivate him or her to pay a premium for an ordinary object associated with a work by a favorite author.

PARTICIPATION: Now I think we’re getting somewhere. The fact is, bidding in—and winning—a Significant Objects auction is not just a transaction, it’s an activity. You do something, over a sustained period of time, and you participate in a community. This has something to with why I chose to do a serial leading up to my Significant Objects contribution. More about that tomorrow.

Click here for more information about Significant Objects and my contribution, “Why They Cried.”