Making The 'Significant Objects' Project... Even More Significant
from the recycling-for-profit dept
Back in July, we commented on the Significant Objects project where 100 authors are writing up 100 stories involving 100 various trinkets -- and then selling those stories along with the associated items on eBay for a tidy profit. (The project originally struck me as an experiment to see if the one red paperclip stunt could be mass produced in some way as a sustainable publishing business.) Now, just a few months later, Slate has teamed up with the Significant Objects folks with a contest for Slate readers to submit their own 500-word stories about a cheap tchotchke -- a BBQ sauce jar bought at a thrift store for $0.75. The contest attracted over 600 stories to be judged by Slate and the Significant Objects founders, and the winner gets the honor of being picked as well as the proceeds from its eBay auction -- which has a current bid (and profit) of about $20.This contest is brilliant in that it not only highlights the concept that every product is a bundle of scarce and infinite goods, but it also demonstrates that content can be used to engage with an audience as a form of entertaining advertising. For the price of a bauble and some editorial judging, Slate connected with its fans and gathered a bit of demographic information on its readers who sent in a story (submissions had to be accompanied by an email address and location). Imagine if Slate had instead put a banner ad on its website with a form to fill out for personal information, the response rate for that would likely be much much lower. But with this contest, the cost of the BBQ jar was negligible, and Slate editors spent their time reading stories and got a peek into the creative minds of its readership. Okay, the drawback is that the submission judging process is actually not a trivial task, especially when there are more than a handful of entries (and more than a couple judges). Even Google hasn't exactly figured out how to judge its own Project 10100 contest. However, the search giant opened up the judging to let anyone vote on winners to help narrow down the selection. (And there are other examples of crowdsourced judging processes like Threadless's tshirt designs.) So I envision the next generation of advertising contests reaching out to audiences, calling upon more volunteers, and trying more and more creative campaigns to produce scarce goods out of thin air.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: advertising, content, infinite goods, scarce goods, significant objects
Companies: slate
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Scarce and infinite goods?
I'm not sure what you mean by this. The stories combined with the objects are a combination of non-physical and physical goods, but what are the "infinite" goods? If you mean the stories, presumably each object comes with a unique story, so that part isn't infinite. Each story should be one-of-a-kind.
The objects, while perhaps common, aren't infinite either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Scarce and infinite goods?
The stories, once created, are in fact infinite, in that they can be copied infinitely at no cost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Scarce and infinite goods?
The fact that something can be copied doesn't mean it is infinite. If that is the case, presumably every conversation is infinite because it can be repeated.
The act of creating the story is no more infinite than a team of marketing people coming up with a slogan. If one slogan can be used for every product, then there's no need for marketing people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Scarce and infinite goods?
Hmm? I didn't say anything about everyone using the same story.
The point isn't that everyone uses the same story, but that the story is out there, separate from the object.
For example, let's say the story is, "My uncle found this hiking Africa." If every shirt, every jar, every book on eBay started with "My uncle found this hiking in Africa," it would be kind of pointless.
Indeed. But no one suggested anything like that. Not even close. Why create a strawman?
The fact that something can be copied doesn't mean it is infinite. If that is the case, presumably every conversation is infinite because it can be repeated.
But it is infinite. It can be copied without limit at no cost.
The act of creating the story is no more infinite than a team of marketing people coming up with a slogan. If one slogan can be used for every product, then there's no need for marketing people.
The act of *creating* a story is scarce. The story, once created, is infinite. Important difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Scarce and infinite goods?
It is at best an artificial construct of scarcity, as it is something that can easily be replicated by other writers and a whole industry could spawn from it, making it as unique as grains of sand on a beach.
It's a cute project, a novelty, but nothing much more. Trying to read in some sort of scarce goods moral into it is a bit of a (techdirt) reach.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Scarce and infinite goods?
I tend to agree that saying anything involving words is "infinite" is a stretch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Scarce and infinite goods?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Scarce and infinite goods?
Sure, I understand.
But this isn't a good example, because each object comes with a unique story.
Plus, while the "infinite goods" idea works if you want to create a lot of exposure (e.g., putting your music on the web for free), the "Significant Objects" experiment doesn't depend on exposure. The idea is that people will stumble upon an object on eBay, fall for the story, and then believing it, decide to buy the object. If you promote this concept heavily by blasting the story to everyone, then people know the stories have just been made up and it works against selling the objects.
THAT'S my point. You don't always want to give stuff away for free for exposure. Sometimes you want to keep it quiet and market something one at a time, one-on-one.
The "give-it-away-for-free-because-it-costs-you-nothing" sales technique is NOT the best option in all cases. The "Significant Objects" idea where it is likely to be counterproductive.
Imagine, if you will, a guy who is a smooth talker. Women think he is talking just to each one of them. If, on the other hand, someone records his pick up lines and puts them on the web, his game is up. Now the women know he tells the same thing to each of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Scarce and infinite goods?
The story IS INFINITE. Stop pretending it's not. It is. The object is scarce. But by linking the infinite to the scarce, it makes the scarce more valuable.
The fact that the story is unique does not change the fact that it's infinite. You seem to have trouble understanding this concept and I really cannot figure out why.
Plus, while the "infinite goods" idea works if you want to create a lot of exposure (e.g., putting your music on the web for free), the "Significant Objects" experiment doesn't depend on exposure. The idea is that people will stumble upon an object on eBay, fall for the story, and then believing it, decide to buy the object. If you promote this concept heavily by blasting the story to everyone, then people know the stories have just been made up and it works against selling the objects.
You keep thinking that by infinite we mean it HAS to be spread widely. No. We never said that (again you keep making up these false definitions). We said that it CAN be spread widely.
THAT'S my point. You don't always want to give stuff away for free for exposure. Sometimes you want to keep it quiet and market something one at a time, one-on-one.
It's not just about "exposure." It's about using the infinite to make the scarce more valuable. And that's exactly what the story does.
The "give-it-away-for-free-because-it-costs-you-nothing" sales technique is NOT the best option in all cases. The "Significant Objects" idea where it is likely to be counterproductive.
But they did give the story away for free. Please show me where they didn't? You aren't making any sense.
Imagine, if you will, a guy who is a smooth talker. Women think he is talking just to each one of them. If, on the other hand, someone records his pick up lines and puts them on the web, his game is up. Now the women know he tells the same thing to each of them.
That's a terrible analogy. This isn't about using the same story on different objects. I already said that. Multiple times. Why do you keep insisting it's otherwise? I'm really trying to understand why you insist on repeatedly misrepresenting what we say even after it's been pointed out to you multiple times. You're very smart. I can't figure out why you have trouble with this concept.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The point of the "Significant Objects" Project
The idea WOULDN'T work if the same story is used for every object. So the story itself is actually less infinite than the objects being sold because those objects are essentially random trash that the storytellers picked up to try to sell on eBay.
So it's the story, not the object, that is the scarce item. As soon as it becomes copied, it isn't valuable anymore, and the object becomes less valuable, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The point of the "Significant Objects" Project
Right. The *story* is infinite. They're not selling the story, and anyone can read the story for free. It's infinitely copyable at no cost. It's infinite.
The *object* is a scarce good.
The POINT is that the infinite good, even though available entirely for free, makes the scarce good more valuable (just as music -- infinite good -- makes a concert -- scarce good -- more valuable).
The idea WOULDN'T work if the same story is used for every object.
I don't know why you keep bring that up. No one said it did. And we said that. So why do you bring it up again?
The point is that if you properly use the infinite good to make a specific scarce good more valuable, you can do that. It doesn't mean you can apply the infinite good to all scarce goods or that you should.
So it's the story, not the object, that is the scarce item.
No, that's simply incorrect. The story is infinite. It's an attribute: can it be infinitely copied at no cost? Yes? It's an infinite, rather than scarce good. Done. No questions, no debate. It's a fact.
As soon as it becomes copied, it isn't valuable anymore, and the object becomes less valuable, too.
No. As soon as the story is copied, it drives more people to see the auction, and drives up the price of the scarce good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The point of the "Significant Objects" Project
You are saying anything that can be copied endless numbers of times is infinite.
I'm saying that something that loses value as soon as it is copied isn't infinite. It's finite because it's useful once and then gets discarded.
We're talking about the difference between infinite and ephemeral.
While you are using the "significant objects" project to support your view of economics, I'm saying I have a different view.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The point of the "Significant Objects" Project
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The point of the "Significant Objects" Project
Yes.
I'm saying that something that loses value as soon as it is copied isn't infinite. It's finite because it's useful once and then gets discarded.
I have to be honest. I don't understand what point you're driving at here. What's losing value here? Who cares if it gets discarded? In fact, a good part of the *value* of an infinite good is that it can be discarded. It's Carver Mead's concept of "waste is good" when you're dealing with abundance.
We're talking about the difference between infinite and ephemeral.
Being ephemeral has nothing to do with it.
While you are using the "significant objects" project to support your view of economics, I'm saying I have a different view.
But what is that view that you have? I'm not "using" Significant Objects -- it IS an example of what we talk about.
I guess I"m just confused about your point. You keep saying that we're wrong, but then you don't say why or how.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Missing the point, again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Missing the point, again
Here's the relevant quote from the Significant Objects project.
"A talented, creative writer invents a story about an object. Invested with new significance by this fiction, the object should — according to our hypothesis — acquire not merely subjective but objective value. How to test our theory? Via eBay!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Missing the point, again
In the end, it is trying very, very hard to ignore the basic fact: Good stories are still a very scarce commodity, and the method by which they are distributed to the masses doesn't change that scarcity one iota.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Missing the point, again
It's kind of interesting that if each story is unique and you buy the object linked to it, then I suppose you can claim you now own the story. Sure, other people can read about it for free, but you are the only one who now owns the object linked to the story.
I'm trying to clarify that the story isn't infinite. It can be repeated, but if it is being used to sell something, it only works if the story is used once. After that, the story can't really be used again to sell another object. It's a one-time thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Missing the point, again
It's not scarce. There is no limit on the story.
It's kind of interesting that if each story is unique and you buy the object linked to it, then I suppose you can claim you now own the story. Sure, other people can read about it for free, but you are the only one who now owns the object linked to the story.
No, you don't own the story. No one can own the story. But your last sentence is the entire point we're making. The *scarcity* is the *object linked to the story*. It's the object that's scarce, but it's the infinite good (the story) that makes the object valuable.
The infinite good makes the scarce good more valuable. That's it. That's what we've been saying all over again.
I'm trying to clarify that the story isn't infinite.
But it is. You just said it was!
It can be repeated, but if it is being used to sell something, it only works if the story is used once.
Argh! Suzanne. You're driving me crazy. No one said it was to be used multiple times to sell multiple objects. Drop the strawman. Drop it. Stop repeating it. No one is saying that.
What we're saying (again and again and again and again) is that the story itself can get passed around at no cost to the producer, and the more people who read it, the more that SCARCE good (the object linked to the story) is valued. The infinite good increases the value of the scarce good it's linked to. Let me repeat: The infinite good increases the value of the scarce good it's linked to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Missing the point, again
The reason there is a distinction is to place a value on the act of creating. By saying the story is infinite and the object has value, you are suggesting that the story in and of itself doesn't have a salable value because it can be infinitely reproduced.
Creative people who are selling their services don't necessarily want to be told that they only way they can be paid is to link it to "stuff." That's the issue with musicians being told that to monetize music they need to sell t-shirts or collectibles.
Good stories, as other people have said, are scarce. The fact that they can be reproduced does not make them any less scarce. The original, which in this case, is linked to the object, is scarce because presumably it is one-of-a-kind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Missing the point, again
Yes! Exactly. We agree. The *creation* of a NEW story is a scarce good. But the story, ONCE CREATED, is infinite. This is fact. It's not arguable. It's not opinion. It's fact.
The sold object has little value without the story. So it is the story which has value.
No, it's the story that's making the *object* valuable.
And the value can only be transferred to the object if it is transferred once, which is why the story isn't infinite.
No, the story is infinite. The object is scarce. We're going around in circles here. I don't know why you keep saying that the story needs to be applied to multiple objects. NO ONE SAID THAT. Why do you keep repeating it? No one's buying the story. They're buying the object which is made more valuable by the story.
The reason there is a distinction is to place a value on the act of creating.
Yes, the *act* of creating is scarce. The content, created, is not.
By saying the story is infinite and the object has value, you are suggesting that the story in and of itself doesn't have a salable value because it can be infinitely reproduced.
Yes. I am saying that. Trying to sell infinite goods is a losing proposition. That's the whole point.
Creative people who are selling their services don't necessarily want to be told that they only way they can be paid is to link it to "stuff."
Selling *services* is selling something scarce. The *service* is scarce. The *output* is not.
You don't have to link it to something tangible, just to something scarce -- including the ability to create new content. Again, the creation of new content: scarce. The content, once created: infinite.
That's the issue with musicians being told that to monetize music they need to sell t-shirts or collectibles.
Why is that an "issue"? I don't care what musicians "want" or "don't want." I care about basic economics. Look, I want you to give me a million dollars to keep discussing this with me. You won't. Why not? The economics don't make sense. What I want is meaningless. What the economics say is important.
Good stories, as other people have said, are scarce.
No, the creation of them is scarce. The content itself? Not scarce.
The fact that they can be reproduced does not make them any less scarce.
Yes, actually, it does. Entirely. The very definition of scarcity is that it's a limited resource. The more they're reproduced, the less scarce. By definition. This is not arguable. Please stop arguing it.
The original, which in this case, is linked to the object, is scarce because presumably it is one-of-a-kind.
Yes, the OBJECT is one of a kind, because it's linked to the infinite good. That's what's being sold.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Missing the point, again
Like I said, you can have your opinion, and I can have mine. I don't see anything infinite in the "Significant Objects" project and you do.
I see non-physical objects and physical objects, but not infinite items. Something that changes context as soon as it is repeated is not, in my mind, infinite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Missing the point, again
Right! THE LINK is what's scarce, because it's linked to an object. The CONTENT is not scarce. The fact that the content is infinite is what makes the link more valuable. The fact that anyone can read the story for free (because there's NO COST to reproduce) attracts a wider audience and drives up what people are willing to pay for the scarce good.
Like I said, you can have your opinion, and I can have mine. I don't see anything infinite in the "Significant Objects" project and you do.
Ugh. Suzanne, this not *opinion*. I'm talking about economic FACT. We can have a difference of opinion on if this is smart or if it's a good idea or if it really works well. That's an opinion. But there is no "opinion" on whether or not the content is infinite. It is. It's like saying we differ on the opinion of whether or not the sky is blue. There's no opinion to debate. There is only fact.
I see non-physical objects and physical objects, but not infinite items. Something that changes context as soon as it is repeated is not, in my mind, infinite.
You are confusing the link between the infinite and the scarce good with the infinite good itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Missing the point, again
Economics offers all sorts of different ways to determine value. It's not as scientific as you suggest.
Again, I would argue that non-physical is not necessarily the same as infinite.
Reproducible for free also does not make something infinite.
Even with a conversation, saying the exact same words can convey different meanings given context, who is saying them, vocal inflection, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Missing the point, again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Missing the point, again
Dirt, touched by Elvis, is worth more than dirt from your garden. It isn't the dirt that is valuable (and dirt, we could argue, is infinite). It's the association with celebrity.
I think this is a great topic because you guys present view, and I present another. It's all about meaning and value. That's kind of the crux of it, isn't it? It isn't really about infinite goods. It's about what holds meaning for someone. If someone famous touches an infinite good, it's valuable because of the touch. The infinite part is really irrelevant. Have the celebrity touch your skin. Touches are infinite. Who they come from aren't. So therefore the touch itself isn't infinite.
I suppose that's my point. Why bother to throw "infinite" into the discussion of the "Significant Objects" example? It's irrelevant. This example really hasn't very little to do with digital reproduction and the fact that the story can be retold.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Missing the point, again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Missing the point, again
I am interested in the "Significant Objects" Project, but for other reasons.
I'm exploring the marketing of music and art in my own blog posts.
http://brandsplusmusic.blogspot.com/2009/10/art-of-music-merchandising.html
The concept of reaching the greatest number of people with free digital stuff works in some cases, but actually works against other products. It's a mass marketing approach to give away stuff for free. Sometimes you increase an item's value by limiting access to it and not telling the masses (e.g. the high end art market, a private club you can join by invitation only). Widespread publicity is one route. But creating an elite, even secret market, is another approach.
In fact, I would suggest that the more some items are promoted via unlimited digital sharing, the more some people will avoid them. To paraphrase Groucho Marx, "Any club that would have me, I don't want to join."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Missing the point, again
But musicians are encouraged to sell the reverse.
I don't know what you mean by this.
Presumably the stuff Amanda Palmer auctions off, like a postcard, is of value because it comes from Amanda Palmer.
Exactly. The postcard (scarce) is made more valuable by the celebrity (infinite) of Amanda Palmer.
It's all about meaning and value. That's kind of the crux of it, isn't it? It isn't really about infinite goods.
It is very much about the infinite goods, because that's how you make a scarce good much more valuable, by somehow linking it to an infinite good.
If someone famous touches an infinite good, it's valuable because of the touch
No, you have it backwards. If someone famous touches a *scarce* good, it makes that scarce good valuable due to the famous person's celebrity (infinite).
The infinite part is really irrelevant.
It's incredibly relevant. It's the very key.
Have the celebrity touch your skin. Touches are infinite. Who they come from aren't. So therefore the touch itself isn't infinite.
No, the touch is scarce. The celebrity status is infinite.
I suppose that's my point. Why bother to throw "infinite" into the discussion of the "Significant Objects" example?
Because it explains exactly how this works. It's the key to the whole deal. It's incredibly relevant. It's everything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Missing the point, again
The story doesn't function as an infinite good in this case because it isn't really being reproduced endlessly.
Most of the time you seem to suggest that free digital copies will function as a marketing devise, and once you have generated an audience, you can sell them stuff. That's how celebrity works. But celebrity status doesn't have to be created through infinite goods.
The infinite goods idea is one way to make the best of a reality (ie., that people are sharing stuff online anyway) so let's exploit that. I come from a marketing background and am advocate of sponsorships, so you are talking to a believer.
But the Significant Objects Project doesn't strike me as illustrating mass marketing at all. Again, I don't see infinite goods in this example, nor do I see it working because of it. Trying to use this to make your point seems to be stretch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Missing the point, again
What? The story IS the infinite good. The project doesn't work without the infinite good. I don't see why you're saying it doesn't need the infinite good. Without it, there is no project.
The story doesn't function as an infinite good in this case because it isn't really being reproduced endlessly.
Yes. It is. Anyone can read the story. Anyone. At no cost. It's the infinite good. That's why it works. It's now about how many times it IS reproduced, but how many times it CAN BE reproduced at no cost.
Most of the time you seem to suggest that free digital copies will function as a marketing devise, and once you have generated an audience, you can sell them stuff. That's how celebrity works. But celebrity status doesn't have to be created through infinite goods.
Celebrity status IS the infinite good. You seem confused over what an infinite good is.
But the Significant Objects Project doesn't strike me as illustrating mass marketing at all. Again, I don't see infinite goods in this example, nor do I see it working because of it. Trying to use this to make your point seems to be stretch.
We're talking in circles here and I simply cannot understand why. The story is an infinite good. That's not debatable. Here's the definition of the infinite good: does it cost anything to reproduce? No? It's an infinite good. The story is an infinite good and this is a PERFECT example of using infinite goods to make scarce goods more valuable.
Without the infinite good, the objects aren't sold for nearly as much. This isn't a stretch at all, this is about as perfect an example as I've seen.
Suzanne, you keep insisting that the sky is not blue. No matter how many times you say that, it doesn't change the fact that the sky is blue. The story is an infinite good. That's not an opinion, it's a fact. Stop pretending that's an opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Missing the point, again
Yes, but we're not arguing how to determine value. We were discussing what was infinite and what was not. If you want to debate the value, we can, but that's different than what we were discussing.
Again, I would argue that non-physical is not necessarily the same as infinite.
There is no argument. It's a factual statement.
Reproducible for free also does not make something infinite.
Yes, it does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Missing the point, again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spreadable Media
I just saw this and it might be of interest.
http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/sam-ford/conversation-convergence/spreadable-media-cure -viral-marketing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Infinite good?
"Celebrity status IS the infinite good. You seem confused over what an infinite good is."
"The story is an infinite good. That's not debatable. Here's the definition of the infinite good: does it cost anything to reproduce? No? It's an infinite good. The story is an infinite good and this is a PERFECT example of using infinite goods to make scarce goods more valuable."
I still don't agree with your definition of "infinite." Something that is freely copyable is not necessary infinite. Making an exact copy but taking it out of context doesn't make it infinite.
If a famous person tells me a story, and then I tell the story to someone else, while the words are the same, the context is not. You are suggesting that everything that can be reproduced online is therefore infinite. Not if it is taken out of context. If Obama sends me a personal email and then I forward it, I was still the only one who got if from Obama. The people who see what I forward them aren't getting the same experience.
Making multiple reproductions of something digital does not make it infinite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Infinite good?
Ugh. You keep lumping in the context. The *context* is part of the scarcity. That's the whole POINT. The context is what links the infinite good to the scarce good and makes the scarce good more valuable. But that doesn't change the fact that the infinite good is infinite. You point out, correctly, that the context is important. It is. It's the link. But it DOES NOT change the fact that the story is infinite. It is.
You are wrong. I'm sorry, I can't say this any clearer. You cannot "disagree" here because there's nothing to disagree with. It's not an opinion. The stories are infinite. Period. Done. Over with.
If a famous person tells me a story, and then I tell the story to someone else, while the words are the same, the context is not.
Exactly. But the story is still infinite. As you just demonstrated. But the story, without the context (the link) doesn't have the same sort of value. Exactly. That's the WHOLE POINT I KEEP REPEATING.
You LINK (context) the infinite (story) to the scarce (object) and then you have greater value.
You are suggesting that everything that can be reproduced online is therefore infinite. Not if it is taken out of context.
The context is SEPARATE. That's the link! That's the link! That's what links the infinite to the scarce. And, yes, it is infinite. Stop saying it's not. You are wrong. Flat out wrong.
If Obama sends me a personal email and then I forward it, I was still the only one who got if from Obama
Exactly. But the email is infinite. It can be copied. But the context (the link) between the infinite and the scarce is where the value is derived.
Making multiple reproductions of something digital does not make it infinite.
My goodness, Suzanne. Your smart. Stop saying dumb things. It's not "making multiple reproductions." It's the fact that it *CAN* be copied infinitely at no cost. That makes it infinite.
This is really getting tiresome. You're a very smart person. I'm having trouble understanding why this is so difficult for you to get. You seem to recognize that the story and the context are two separate things, but you then ignore it. I don't get it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Infinite good?
The story absolutely does not have to be copied to be of value. The "Significant Objects" Project could exist (and versions do) in your neighborhood antique store. It's been conducted for centuries in bazaars. People make up a good story to sell something.
The infinite good has nothing to do with why this experiment works. The "infinite" is irrelevant. It's a story that can be told to one person to persuade that person to buy it. It could be at a garage sale.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Infinite good?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Infinite good?
infinitely reproducible at no cost equals infinite good (pretty much any DRM free digital media, the DRM is an artificial constraint on an infinite good)
Some physical object or certain other intangible but measurable item (i.e. a persons time or effort) is a scarce good. If I add an infinite good which a consumer is unwilling to pay for on it's own (a song, story, image in a digital medium) to a scarce good (such as a performers time, an autographed newspaper clipping, a limited lithograph) I can leverage one to exact a higher price for the other. That's it. infinite good+scarce good=more money. Period end of story. Your own example of a bazaar is perfect. scarce good (old chair) + infinite good (cool story) = more money. Yes, the story is infinite. It can be reproduced at almost no cost by anyone that has heard/seen it. I don't know any other way to put it. So, I hope this gets through, because I give up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Infinite good?
You are trying to suggest that if something isn't physical, then therefore it is infinite. Not necessarily so. The infinite good model doesn't work with all sales.
I see you wanting to equate infinite with intangible on the assumption that if there is no physical cost to make something, it is therefore infinite. There are many things that have no physical existence that can't or shouldn't be produced infinitely.
I've actually enjoyed this conversation quite a bit because it gives me more material to discuss some of the issues involved in moving music into an arts-based economy. I can't always expand on my ideas here, but I do in my blog.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Infinite good?
Which is what Matthew and I are saying. By adding the infinite and *linking* it to a scarce good, you increase what you can sell that scarce good for. I don't see why you keep insisting it's not true, when you seem to admit it's true at the same time.
You are trying to suggest that if something isn't physical, then therefore it is infinite. Not necessarily so. The infinite good model doesn't work with all sales.
No, not if it's "not physical." Only if it can be infinitely reproduced at no cost (a definition I have put forth multiple times in this thread, so I don't know why you keep trying to define it differently -- it's really quite frustrating).
Yes, infinite goods are often not physical, but that does not mean all "not physical" goods are infinite. The definition of infinite is if it can be copied at no cost. That's it. As Mike Ho notes, in traditional economics terms it's "non-rivlarous, non-excludable." That's an infinite good. If you can link that to a scarce good, you can use the infinite good to increase the price people will pay for the scarce good.
And, the Significant Objects story is a PERFECT example of this.
I see you wanting to equate infinite with intangible on the assumption that if there is no physical cost to make something, it is therefore infinite. There are many things that have no physical existence that can't or shouldn't be produced infinitely.
Again. This is killing me. You keep trying to redefine what we said. NO ONE SAID THAT INFINITE MEANS NON-PHYSICAL.
Simply put (again): Can it be copied at no cost? Yes? It's infinite. Period. Stop trying to redefine it. It's incredibly frustrating to explain this to you, and then have you say something entirely different.
Access to a person is non-physical. But it's not infinite. Time is non-physical. But it's not infinite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Infinite good?
No matter what, all copying involves some cost. Time, equipment, connectivity, whatever. Nothing is absolutely free.
It's basically putting on the blinders and ignoring all the fixed costs, and looking only at marginal costs. So even if downloading that song only too a few minutes, that is a few minutes out of your monthly internet bill that might have been spent elsewhere. Thus, the copy, while extracting no direct money from your pocket, still had cost.
Perhaps you would like to redefine as "no immediate out of pocket costs that the average person would consider in obtaining the copy"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Infinite good?
A significant detail is that there is skill in storytelling. As others pointed out here, not everyone does it well.
So if you want to figure out the true cost, you need to budget for the training that people need to be good storytellers and the fact that each object needs a new story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Infinite good?
Those are fixed costs. That has no impact on whether or not an item, once created, is infinite. None. This is first week of economics stuff.
It's basically putting on the blinders and ignoring all the fixed costs, and looking only at marginal costs.
Right. That's what you're supposed to do.
So even if downloading that song only too a few minutes, that is a few minutes out of your monthly internet bill that might have been spent elsewhere. Thus, the copy, while extracting no direct money from your pocket, still had cost.
Wow. You really are stretching. That's a cost to the user, not to the producer. We're talking the marginal cost to the producer.
Please, please, please, try to understand basic economics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Infinite good?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Infinite good?
Sure. I can live with that. And that seems to be the main focus of much of Techdirt: Don't make laws and sue people for sharing. I don't even bother to get into the RIAA discussions because I see it as a dead issue.
But the realities of making a living at music involve a lot of details that never get discussed here. So that's where I try to fill in the blanks.
The SIgnificant Objects Project is important in that it shows people like to buy something with a story. But it wouldn't work if they thought it was a story applied to everything. It works because they perceive it as a unique story. That's why I say the "infinite" part is irrelevant to its success. The story is so firmly attached to the object that I don't see it as a separate item.
I'm interpreting the significance of the Significant Objects Project differently than Mike, and nothing that has been brought up so far has changed my mind about that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Infinite good?
I didn't say it *had* to be copied, just that it *could* be copied. That's all.
The infinite good has nothing to do with why this experiment works. The "infinite" is irrelevant.
No, it's not irrelevant at all. It's the key. You couldn't do this with a scarce good alone. It's the only reason those objects are being sold for so much. That's the whole point.
It's a story that can be told to one person to persuade that person to buy it. It could be at a garage sale.
Yes. But the story is still infinite. It's the story that makes people buy the scarce good for more. The fact that it's "at a garage sale" doesn't change the fact that it's infinite.
The. Story. Is. Infinite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Infinite good?
That's like saying that standing next to someone and talking about the object is more effective than just handing someone the object.
I guess my reaction to that is, "Duh." There's no real principle here. It's like saying, "Human interaction improves sales." Again, duh.
Again, sometimes I jump into the Techdirt discussion when I see no attempt to define nuances. Nuances make a ton of difference. Talking about "infinite goods" without really explaining the psychology of selling and how selling luxury items is different than mass marketing items doesn't help people put this into practice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Infinite good?
I assume my point is clear, though.
Here's how it should have read:
______
What I see is that you are so locked into promoting an idea that you are saying that attaching an infinite good to a physical object increases sales of the physical object.
______
Again, my point in all of my posts is that I just don't think the concept is a good example of that. There are better ones to be found than this. If you stretch the "infinite good" idea too far, it doesn't always hold up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Infinite good?
Suzanne, that's ridiculous. It has nothing to do with what I want to "promote." That makes no difference to me. This is a PERFECT example of using an infinite good to make a scarce good more valuable. I really cannot see why you are so blind to this. It's *exactly* what we talk about.
That's like saying that standing next to someone and talking about the object is more effective than just handing someone the object.
What? That makes no sense to me.
I guess my reaction to that is, "Duh." There's no real principle here. It's like saying, "Human interaction improves sales." Again, duh.
Heh. If it's such a "duh" why are so many people failing at it?
Again, sometimes I jump into the Techdirt discussion when I see no attempt to define nuances. Nuances make a ton of difference. Talking about "infinite goods" without really explaining the psychology of selling and how selling luxury items is different than mass marketing items doesn't help people put this into practice.
If you want to talk nuance, you have to at least get the basics right, and you aren't doing that. You keep insisting that infinite goods aren't infinite, and you are wrong.
If you understand how infinite goods link to scarce goods, that helps you understand the psychology. Economics and psychology are two sides of the same coin. But you are trying to ignore the economics for some reason that I cannot fathom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How about this?
1. Sell stuff people want to buy.
2. Storytelling helps to sell stuff. We'll call storytelling an infinite good.
Okay, is that in a nutshell?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How about this?
1. To get popular and rich, 1. connect with fans and 2. give them a reason to buy something (CwF + RtB)
2. Trying to sell non-rivalrous non-excludable (since you seem to have a problem with the term "infinite") goods is in the long term a losing proposition, so if you have them it's better to spread them as freely and widely as possible to make a scarce good more valuable. Then sell the scarce good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How about this?
Giving the people the reason to buy is the basis of all business. I think getting a book by Kotler would be a good place to start. The concept CwF + RtB really doesn't tell us much.
"2. Trying to sell non-rivalrous non-excludable (since you seem to have a problem with the term "infinite") goods is in the long term a losing proposition, so if you have them it's better to spread them as freely and widely as possible to make a scarce good more valuable. Then sell the scarce good."
The "spread-them-out-freely" makes sense if people are copying the stuff anyway. That's why I don't bother to talk about recorded music. People don't want to pay for it, so you got to live with it. Why fight it?
But there is no reason to build a business model on spreading stuff for free when people aren't trying to copy it and if multiple copies don't enhance the business plan.
But there's a ton of clutter these days. So the "spread-them-out-freely" adds more clutter. Therefore, if you can do something that is different than that, it makes sense to explore it. I think exclusivity is probably a good angle. How about a social network that is secret and requires a special invitation to join?
If you are in music, how about not recording anything and have shows that you can attend only by invitation?
There was a club in NYC that I used to go to that was hidden in the back of a non-description antique store. You had to go through a secret door to find it. At the club they gave out matchbooks that said, "Tell only your best friends about it." It was always packed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How about this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: How about this?
Good question. If you approach it the way art galleries or exclusive clubs do, you develop a targeted invitation list or hold a private party and invite people.
It doesn't work so well for a young band that doesn't know anyone, has no network, and has no social skills. In that case, the band may need to team up with someone who already has a collection of the right friends.
It's also possible to go to places like art galleries and see if you can do a cross-promotion with them. If you develop a rapport with the owner and the music is a good fit, you can perhaps play at an event or two to gain access to their client base.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How about this?
Again, this is a perfect example of what we talk about, even if you seem confused by it.
*Access* is a great scarcity. It's one we talk about all the time. But what makes that access more valuable? The music (the infinite good). So, again, you are proving our point even as you insist you're disproving it.
If you are in music, how about not recording anything and have shows that you can attend only by invitation?
But who's going to attend a show if they don't know about the music? Why would you do that?
There was a club in NYC that I used to go to that was hidden in the back of a non-description antique store. You had to go through a secret door to find it. At the club they gave out matchbooks that said, "Tell only your best friends about it." It was always packed.
Right, because access is a scarcity, but no one would have cared at all if the music that was played their sucked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: How about this?
If you only play live and don't make any recordings, it isn't infinite. It takes time and effort to play each time.
But who's going to attend a show if they don't know about the music? Why would you do that?
If my friends to a party or if I get an invitation to a VIP party, I'm going to go. If it's an exclusive event and if I anticipate getting to network with the right people, I'm going to go.
And if there is music while I am there, I'll hear about it. In fact, quite like there won't be any mention of music in the invitation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How about this?
______
I'm throwing a party. Just a few of my closest friends. Please come.
______
If I get that from a close friend of mine, I'm going to go to that. There's no mention of hearing a band. But if a band happens to be there, then I'll hear them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How about this?
Then that's something else. That's advertising a party. I'm confused. I thought we were talking about advertising bands.
What does an invitation to a party have to do with what we're talking about? I'm really confused again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How about this?
1. Sell stuff people want to buy.
2. Storytelling helps to sell stuff. We'll call storytelling an infinite good.
Okay, is that in a nutshell?
No. Suzanne, that is insulting. It's not us "calling" something an infinite good. It's a fact. Why do you keep insisting that it's an opinion? I've been asking this throughout this entire thread and you just keep repeating it.
An infinite good is not an opinion. It's not something that you "call" something. It's factual. Is it non-rivalrous and non-excludable? Yes? It's infinite. Done and done. Stop arguing.
Then, we discussed the model in great detail here:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070503/012939.shtml
It's about recognizing what stuff is infinite and what is scarce, and using the infinite goods to make the scarce goods more valuable via a link.
It is not "sell stuff people want to buy" it's "sell scarce stuff, made more valuable by infinite stuff -- and use that infinite stuff wisely to keep increasing the value of the scarce stuff." If you can't understand the difference between what's scarce and what's infinite, then you'll never properly understand what makes people willing to pay more for an item. You'll never recognize how to properly set up a business model.
And, yes, the Significant Objects project is a perfect example of this no matter how confused you might be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How about this?
Sorry. Conversations are not infinite. If something is shared in a conversation (which can be a story), it isn't infinite.
Your definition of infinite doesn't fit all the examples you try to apply it to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How about this?
The alphabet is an infinite good since you can use the alphabet without cost. So all conversations using letters are infinite. Now we can agree. :-)
Yes, if you string a group of letters together to form words and those words are used to sell an object, then you have applied an infinite good to sell an object. Why yes, that's a pretty fundamental principle.
Similarly, all musical notes are infinite goods. So all music using musical notes are infinite goods. :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How about this?
A conversation (spoken) between two people is not infinite. You are correct. That's because it's excludable. We said, infinite goods are non-rivalrous and non-excludable. Why do you keep insisting on putting words in my mouth. I never said a conversation was infinite. But a recorded conversation available in digital format is infinite.
Your definition of infinite doesn't fit all the examples you try to apply it to.
Ok. I'm going to start banging my head on my desk. You're just making stuff up now. I thought we were having an intelligent conversation and now I get the feeling that you're just messing with me.
My definition of infinite does, in fact, fit the examples I apply it to. You are the one who keep making up wrong definitions (non-tangible, ephemeral, "whatever you call it"). I made the definition clear: something that can be copied at no cost, or something that is non-rivalrous and non-excludable.
I don't understand why you keep trying to make up stuff we didn't say. I'm really beginning to wonder if you're just trolling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My original point in the entire conversation was that the Significant Objects project does not involve sharing a story multiple times. It is conducted like a conversation. There is no inherent publicity (and therefore no inherent marketing) value in treating the story as an infinite good.
I'm going to use the project in my own writing about marketing art and music memorabilia and my conclusion is the opposite of yours. That's what I have been trying to say and I have been giving my reasons why. It works because the story ISN'T copied. That's a very important point to me.
We just disagree. It's been an interesting exchange.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
*Bangs head*
I give up. Suzanne, you are being obtuse. On purpose. I explained to you IN THIS THREAD at least half a dozen times that it has nothing to do with how many times the story IS shared, but whether or not it CAN BE copied at no cost.
That's it. I don't know why you insist on changing the definition over and over again.
There is no inherent publicity (and therefore no inherent marketing) value in treating the story as an infinite good.
That is incorrect. The story itself IS the inherent publicity.
You keep insisting that by "infinite good" we mean you have to share it widely, even though I have said over and over and over and over again that this is not true. I really don't understand why you need to keep repeating this.
Let me try one more time and then I'm giving up:
* Infinite good is based on IF it is copyable at no cost. It has NOTHING to do with how you use it. How you use something does not define if it's an infinite good. The only thing that defines it is *is it non-excludable and non-rivalrous*? If yes? Then it's infinite. Done. Period. Stop trying to deny it.
* The fact that it wasn't used to spread the story around doesn't change the fact that it's an infinite good and it's connection to the scarce good made it more valuable.
You keep insisting that it's not infinite if it's not spread, but that's got nothing to do with it.
I'm going to use the project in my own writing about marketing art and music memorabilia and my conclusion is the opposite of yours. That's what I have been trying to say and I have been giving my reasons why. It works because the story ISN'T copied. That's a very important point to me.
For the love of basic common sense: SUZANNE, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW MANY TIMES THE THING IS COPIED. We told you this. In nearly every comment. Why do you keep repeating it? I don't believe you are dense. So stop acting dense.
I give up. I cannot discuss this with you any more. I've never seen someone so insistent on misrepresenting things. It's really quite incredible.
We just disagree. It's been an interesting exchange.
No. We don't "disagree." You can disagree over opinions. You cannot disagree over facts. You are trying to disagree over facts.
We can argue over the relative importance of the infinite good to the scarce good. But you cannot say that the story is not infinite. Again, this has been explained repeatedly and you keep doing it.
I really find this conversation incredible in that you don't actually seem to read what is written. Stunning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How does it help this project?
In what way does the fact that it can be shared enhance the project? That's what I don't get. I don't see the connection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It doesn't. What the people do with it enhances the project, or fails to enhance it. For example, say they sold the trinkets and then after you buy it someone calls you and reads the story to you over the phone. That is not doing a good job leveraging the story to make the trinket more valuable. Now let's say they post the story online so you can read it first, and then decide to buy the trinket. That has a shot at making the trinket more valuable, especially if the story is good. Does that all sound reasonable? I'm not saying that is the ONLY way they could run this, only that it is a reasonable way to do it that may work well.
Now, can you see that the reason they can do it this way is because it doesn't cost them anything to have someone download and read the story? Use the zero-cost good (the story) to help make the scarce good (the trinket) more valuable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But you can say that about every online communication. You can also say that about the telephone. You can say it about a person-to-person exchange.
I think the only reason this project is online is that eBay presents a convenient way to sell something and see what people will pay for it. You could do it just as well at an auction house.
I'm pointing out these fine points because I am writing about how to sell stuff. I want to explain the nuances.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
A person to person exchange only impacts those two people, so you don't get the price bid up.
I think the only reason this project is online is that eBay presents a convenient way to sell something and see what people will pay for it. You could do it just as well at an auction house.
An auction house would limit -- greatly -- the audience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's because anyone can see that story -- at no cost -- and that helps them bid up the scarce good. If only one person saw that story, they wouldn't pay much for the good. The fact that people bid this product up is because of the story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are you saying this?
The fact that something can be shared is better than something that can't be even if it ISN'T shared?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An auction house would limit -- greatly -- the audience.
Okay, these two points are relevant in respect to where you might sell the object. Putting it online does give you more exposure. You are likely to generate more bidders this way. (I have, on the other hand, told some musicians not to market on eBay because putting their stuff up for bid could send the wrong message about them. If your stuff goes for too little money and everyone sees that, it's hard to ask for more money in the future.)
So, yes, I agree that if you want the widest possible number of people to bid, then putting it on eBay is a wise choice. I would say that whether it was a car or a bike or whatever.
The storytelling part of the experiment, where you make up a unique story to go along with each item, reinforces two thoughts for me:
1. Good copywriters have value.
2. Creating a good story is better than not creating a good story.
Now, I don't associate either copywriting or storytelling with infinite goods per se since they have existed well before the Internet. If you do, that's fine.
What I will emphasize when I write about the Significant Objects Project is that people like to feel they are getting an item that has a unique story. So the more you can make each item that you sell sound personal or unique, the higher the price you can ask for it. Give people an emotional connection to what you sell. If, other the other hand, people get wind of the fact that your story might not be sincere, then you may have undercut that personal touch. So if you are depending on storytelling to sell objects, I'm not sure to what extent you want lots of people to know these are fake stories.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No one said that this means everyone should put everything up on eBay.
Suzanne, why do you keep putting words in my mouth that inaccurately reflect what I'm saying.
We were just discussing what worked about this -- and it's the infinite good making the scarce good more valuable.
1. Good copywriters have value.
2. Creating a good story is better than not creating a good story.
Right. If you are going to use an infinite good to make a scarce good more valuable, the infinite good needs to be *good*. Bad music doesn't get people to concerts, good music does. Good stories increase the price people will pay for objects.
Once again, it's the infinite good making the scarce good more valuable.
Now, I don't associate either copywriting or storytelling with infinite goods per se since they have existed well before the Internet. If you do, that's fine.
Suzanne. It's not about who associates what with what. It's about fact. I have to ask seriously, why you keep insisting this is not the case? What does the fact that stories exist before the internet have to do with anything
What I will emphasize when I write about the Significant Objects Project is that people like to feel they are getting an item that has a unique story
Right. It's the story (infinite good) that makes the object (scarce good) more valuable. If you just emphasize "have a good story" you're missing the point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Right. It's the story (infinite good) that makes the object (scarce good) more valuable.
I honestly don't perceive what you consider to be a fact, to be a fact. But it's hardly worth arguing over.
And I suppose I will continue to interpret the term "infinite" in a different way than you do. I don't see the "potential" to be infinite as the same as "being" infinite. You do. It's your term and you can use it as you like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I guess I just take the term more literally than that. I wouldn't say that making a few copies is infinite. It has the potential to be infinite, I suppose. But I'd put the number more in the millions at least.
infinite |ˈinfənit|
adjective
1 limitless or endless in space, extent, or size; impossible to measure or calculate : the infinite mercy of God | the infinite number of stars in the universe.
• very great in amount or degree : he bathed the wound with infinite care.
• Mathematics greater than any assignable quantity or countable number.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]