Leo Burnett

I thought this spot for Lance Final, a Brazilian retail bidding site, would be an apt introduction to this post.  The ad, a Cannes Lion winner from Leo Burnett Sao Paulo, and its tagline, “Everything has its price,” illustrate the significance we attach to items when context is considered.  For instance, a 50-year-old discarded hairbrush might be worthless; a 50-year-old hairbrush discarded by Marilyn Monroe might be worth thousands.

But what if the context surrounding the item were imaginary?  How would that change its perceived value?

It’s the question authors Rob Walker and Joshua Glenn are trying to answer with an experiment called the Significant Objects Project.  It essentially works like this: Items are purchased at garage sales or resale shops for just a few dollars.  Each is paired with a writer, who invents a story about its origin, and then put up for sale on eBay with the fictitious history placed in the description area.  The project’s curators clearly point out that this new “significance” is, in fact, completely fabricated.  After all, they’re interested in learning only what influence the fictional back story has on the object.  When the auction’s complete, the winning bidder receives both the item and a printout of its corresponding “history.”  And, of course, Walker and Glenn are documenting all findings on the site.

The results so far have been interesting, as the objects have been selling.  A Sanka-branded ashtray, originally purchased for a dollar, sold for $17.79 after it was paired with a story about its “involvement” in a botched jewel heist.  A “smiling mug” fetched $30 more than its original price after it was revealed to have been “featured” in a 1939 film. The authors have said they intend to keep the project going through 100 objects or more, so it should be worth checking in on.

Also curious: In an interview this week with the Los Angeles Times Jacket Copy blog, Glenn says that, so far, each writer has placed his or her item into one of four archetypes:

“I’ve determined that every participant so far has employed the thingamajig we’ve assigned them, in their story, as either a talisman (an object with magical powers, or one that’s conscious), a totem (a tutelary spirit from the natural world), a fossil (a remnant of some vanished epoch or way of life, including childhood), or evidence (the object plays a role in a crime, or an historical event).”

Significant Objects raises some good questions about how we attach value to things.  The Boston Globe Brainaic blog recently posed one of the best:

“Is it the intrinsic utility and beauty of a commodity that creates its value, or the stories we tell ourselves about them?”