The Secret Contagious Mojo That Makes People Value Stuff Connected To Famous People
from the celebrity-cooties? dept
There is sort of an odd article in the NY Times that looks at some of the psychological research that goes into why people like to own stuff that celebrities owned or touched. The report suggests that it comes back to a subconscious belief in "celebrity contagion" and "imitative magic." That is, people sense that if they own something that someone famous touched, they somehow get to "capture" some element of that person's essence. The report covers two separate things. First there is the obsession with owning something someone touched -- where it's noted that people value it less if it's been washed (highlighting the whole "essence" concept). Second, is a look into why people want to buy exact replicas of a celebrity's things. For example, the report highlights an exact replica of a famous Eric Clapton guitar. The replica is right down to the specific nicks and scratches on the guitar -- even though Clapton has never touched this one. So if it was just "essence" this guitar wouldn't be valued that highly. And while it's obviously valued less than the real version it's based on (which sold for just under a million dollars), it's expected that the replica will still sell for $20,000. The thinking here is the value of "imitative magic." That if you have something just like what a famous/successful person had, you'll be able to get some of the same "magic" powers out of it.Frankly, some of this sounds pretty ridiculous -- a sort of inflated market version of cargo cult science -- but if you're looking to understand the psychology behind people who go to great lengths to feel some sort of connection to celebrities, it seems like worthwhile reading just to understand the underpinnings. Indeed, over the years, we've seen artists incorporate this kind of thinking in their own business models. They can often sell off things that they're closely connected to, for a premium, and the buyers are quite happy. We sometimes hear from our usual critics that these business models involve finding "suckers." But the buyers don't seem to feel like suckers, and some of this research seems to explain why.
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: contagious, culture, eric clapton, mojo, value
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If I want to buy an orange and you successfully sell me an apple (while I believe I've just bought an orange), then I'm a sucker, and it doesn't matter if I realize it later or not.
If I want to buy an orange and you sell me an orange but charge twice as much because "this orange is special in a nebulous way," then I'm again a sucker, whether I realize it or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Blech. People are dumb. Anyone buying things because of some ethereal sense of celebrity magic is a sucker, whether they feel like it or not....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think the issue is that they don't feel like a sucker even after critical analysis. If you were to fully understand that you just gave your money away for no return and are happy with that, then I wouldn't call you a sucker, as wanting to give your money away doesn't make you a sucker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're wasting your life
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In this case, if the buyers ever grew brain cells and realized there is no such thing as celebrity mojo, they would feel like the suckers they are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm only a sucker if I think I'm getting something I want and I'm not. Wanting something that others don't want is immaterial.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1. Lock of Mike's hair.
2. Pair of Mike's dirty underwear.
3. Buy a day with techdirt and get a little jar of Mike's excrement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think to actually transfer the celebrity's power...
Gary Busey carved me off a slice of his once. For nearly a week, I did nothing but pick fights with random strangers and re-enact key scenes from "Point Break" (again with random strangers) before wandering back into the bedroom to cry quietly for awhile.
The whole experience was unworldly. I think what sticks with me is the fact that Johnny Utah had a hell of an arm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When you're the man to beat in premium composite hardwood flooring sales in the Pacific Northwest, life comes with some well deserved Rawk bling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Charlie Sheen pissed on it, it must be magical!"
We need to write some more modern myths with this convention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, if not magical, then at least covered in somewhat diluted cocaine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I imagine that's a DC 17 fort save ;p
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://sketchcardsaloon.wordpress.com/2011/03/11/upper-decks-thor-cards-including-a-piece-of-nat alie-portmans-pants/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What makes a baseball card worth a million dollars?
Just because I don't care about autographs or stuff like that doesn't mean others don't, and no one has a right to denigrade others for what they put value in.
I am quite sure there is something that you prize that I would laugh at.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Suckers
"Suckers have no business with money, anyway"
- Canada Bill Jones
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(Right now, I have a sci-fi, a hat, and a record collection, while my programming textbook collection is inactive).
I don't think I'm a sucker, (most of them time), because what I'm buying isn't a "close replica of someone's hat", it's:
A conversation point; A completionist feeling; Owning something unique, either per item or per collection, and notable; Serving to represent my full interest in a field, sometimes where it would otherwise be impossible (ex1) due to scarcity, or at least difficult to accurately represent with abundant materials; and other such things.
In other words, the building of my collections is part of my self-identity. Utility only rarely comes into play, even though it often multiplies the value of an item in my eyes, it rarely effects how much I want to buy it.
(So an unscratched record, because it gives clear sound, is worth more to me, but I don't buy many records to listen to them. I DO listen to my records. But if I wanted to listen to the music, rather than buying them, there's a little thing I know of that I call "the internet".)
Example 1: I paid $250 for a copy of a textbook once because it couldn't be found and I wanted a copy. (A LISP AI textbook from 1985 by an ex-berkeley prof, Wilensky comes to mind, but I think I'm being confused, possibly with LISPcraft, a different text), comparable textbooks from that time usually go for
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Of course, records signed by the artists or related people are worth more to me. My collection have a focus on early East Canadian rock, because I know a lot of the people who were involved, and thus can get signatures. So, the Stringbusters, The Ducats, The Two Cat Showband, etc.
I have all 6 albums from the Ducats signed by the full band, because the first drummer was the dad of one of my co-workers at the time, (That's how I know a lot of the people involved).
These are more valuable to me because of their notability uniqueness, what it says about my dedication to my hobby/collection, because I can also get documents, interviews and stories told by and authenticated by the members of the bands to better record the experience in more than just the music, (Folklorists love me), and y'know, other such things.
The records and signatures and everything are probably worth shit-all to most other people because these were small bands that no one else remembers. But I'm willing to pay usually ~$100 for each record + signatures + stories, as well as spending my time transcribing and filing everything, (rule of thumb: for every 1 hour of recording, that's 6 hours transcribing for clearly spoken speech. Eastern Canada has a number of strong accents, and most of those guys can talk all night about when they were 'local rock stars'). (Most of that $100 is usually transportation to them rather than paying them or buying the record, usually around $20. A day of bussing each way at the least, possibly a 5-day trip sometimes, or a 2-day with $400 plane ticket. But that would only be if a couple of bands have a reunion or meeting, or just all live really close together anyways, (ie: within Halifax)).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]