A writer carves an impressive back-story around an otherwise worthless object, and then sells the object on eBay for piles of money. Sounds like the premise to a subpar Judd Apatow film. In this case though, it's not a movie, it's an online project called Significant Objects, and at its root is a social experiment more than any sort of cash grab.

The thesis behind the project - run by Joshua Glenn and Rob Walker – is as such:

"A talented, creative writer invents a story about an object. Invested with new significance by this fiction, the object should … acquire not merely subjective but objective value. How to test our theory? Via eBay!\"

Walker expands on the premise. "I've long been interested in the idea that the objects that mean most to us are those that have narratives, or play a role in our own life narratives. We [Walker and co-curator Glenn] got interested in whether the story could simply be invented."

The Significant Object process:

1. Glenn and/or Walker buy objects from thrift stores, garage sales and the like, spending no more than a few bucks on each object – ensuring close to zero monetary value to start.
2. A handpicked creative writer is paired with each object to write a fictional story about it, presumably infusing it with value (or ‘significance’).
3. Each newly ‘significant-ized’ object is then listed for sale on eBay, along with a picture and the fictitious information.
   Note: Significant Objects is careful to avoid the impression that the story is factual, as they believe that failure to disclose the experiment to eBay buyers would void the test (more on that later).
   
4. The winning eBay bidder is mailed the object, along with a hard copy of its ficticious story.
   

The Results

So far, every object has increased significantly in value. In fact, the top ten items (by sale price) jumped in average value by an astonishing 6,038 percent (take a look at the Top Ten here). For Walker, this means one thing: “The theory, that story ads value, has been confirmed.”

Certainly, the simple yes-no variety of the thesis has been substantiated, and for that Glenn and Walker should be commended. But the black and white nature of the findings cries for more discovery into the gray.

By factoring in things like disclosure, author talent, and author fame, it may be possible to discover how much value is added and under what circumstance. That’s when things become all the more interesting, if not murky.

The Element of Disclosure

Not surprisingly, some have drawn connections between Significant Objects and the very nature of advertising. (Read Walker’s take on that here.) An anonymous commenter on a BoingBoing post had this to say:

“I hate to tell you this, but you’ve basically just reinvented advertising. Good advertising takes a product and imbues it with some kind of story. The only differences are that 1) generally speaking the product is new instead of used, 2) the story is usually less specific to any individual and more generally applicable to the mass-produced nature of the product and 3) the artifice in the story is more or less deliberately concealed.”

But the "deliberately concealed" portion at the end is the key. Regardless of definitions, many consider advertising, even the good stuff, to be manipulative if not outright dishonest. Such a distinction removes the current incarnation of Significant Objects from the group, and that same honesty may exist as a barrier to testing story’s full power to create monetary value from otherwise worthless objects.

An interesting experiment would be to purchase two identical ‘worthless’ objects - let's say, a pair of sweat socks - and have them both auctioned off on eBay.

The first would be auctioned in its existing state, with no more detail provided than its material makeup and brand name. The honest approach.

The second would be attached to an elaborate back-story ... perhaps the sock was worn by Paris Hilton on the season one finale of My New BFF.  But, unlike Significant Objects, the back-story would be portrayed as factual. That is to say, it would deliberately mislead, as, some would argue, is the case with much of advertising.

Aside from it undoubtedly constituting fraud, and royally screwing up someone’s eBay seller’s account, this kind of parallel auction might produce a comparison line - one that shows the value placed on objects when the associated story is perceived as true.

Talent vs. Fame

The softest portion of the existing Significant Objects calculation has to do with quantifying author prolificacy (“prolificacy” and “quantifying” in the same sentence … man, that felt good). To translate: How do you calculate influential author factors like ‘talent’ and ‘fame’?

Currently, Significant Objects recruits what they call “top creative writers” to conjure the story significance. Myla Goldberg, Daily Show writer Tim Carvell, Stephen Elliott, and David Shield are good examples.

Few would question the talent of the stable, but their pop culture notoriety doesn’t vary enough to label any as either terribly famous or completely unknown. They all write well, and they all have achieved a level of success in their profession, but to the average Joe, they are essentially anonymous, leaving the ‘fame factor’ untested.

The fame factor taken to greater heights would almost certainly demonstrate the pull of popularity: Stephen King could write about a stinky sweat sock and it would likely top the Significant Objects charts overnight, whether disclosed as fiction or not. And a Paris Hilton sweat sock? Forget about it.

Celebrity authors deliver significance that can translate into monetary value by their mere participation. For better or worse, the value not exclusively of the object, but also of the author, remains in the eye of the beholder.

~

Walker talks about the notion of objects meaning most to us when they have a narrative attached, and Significant Objects confirms as much to that extent. The step beyond the personal side of narrative though, is the almost sinister influence that celebrity can have on that value.

This is not to diminish the effort of Significant Objects. As Walker tells us, “We wanted it to be fun, approachable, and something people would talk, blog and twitter about. In other words, while the project is a collection of stories, the project also is a story."

And a good story it is. After all, we’re talking about it right now.

For more information on Significant Objects, visit their website (www.significantobjects.com), or follow them on Twitter (www.twitter.com/SignificObs).