If “value” implies something quantifiable and therefore relevant to commercial purposes and “worth” doesn’t come with a price tag because a lot of it resides in the context of personal experience — as Henry Jenkins et al pointed out in the book “Spreadable Media…” — then we should certainly re-calibrate our expectations on the quality of participative experience that for-profit companies with Web 2.0 presence, especially those too big to fail or to care for anything smaller than a critical mass of target public, can provide us.
Just compare the Walmart cross-country RV tour blogging project mentioned in the book and David Lynch’s cross-country video interview project, two ostensibly similar efforts to sample the varied flavors of contemporary America. Setting aside the flak the Walmart project got for material considerations given to the blogger, I’m sure the folks of Edelman would have at least made sure that the story has a ring of authenticity to it and won’t insult the intelligence of potential audience.
However, such concerns for audience resonance probably won’t involve nearly the same depth of dignifying the unique humanity of those characters featured in the David Lynch interviews. In fact, it is precisely such endeavors that shatter illusions of audience homogeneity in the real world that keep marketers awake at night because they resist convenient herding into a marketing theory. Many of those drifters and dreamers in the Lynch interviews don’t make commercial sense —- don’t have “value” — as compared to an RV-owning, Walmart-hopping couple extolling the virtue of family closeness (and Walmart shopping) across state borders. What we take away from hearing their stories depends largely on the prism of own experience, their “worth” not crunchable in a marketing database.
Interesting thoughts. I don’t think David Lynch was interested in the monetary value of his project so much as the process of traveling across the country and finding all these great people. I mean, I’m sure he made a few bucks, but it doesn’t seem like that’s what he was in it for. The videos are also very folksy and decidedly un-Lynchian, but I think that’s what gives them their charm. Dang, I really want to watch Mulholland Drive now.
I agree with you, Grace. The lack of attachment to a commercial enterprise makes the Interview Project feel more authentic. It’s a collection of interviews for the sake of collecting and revealing people’s lived experiences. Whenever I see commercials that try and use some kind of documentary style that connects a person’s lived experience or understanding of their identity to a product I end up laughing or dismissing it ultimately. I think about the current Levi’s ads or another ad I recently about an artist who discovered Bounty was a good canvas for his paintings. The people are probably being honest and the production of the pieces is really engaging, but the pieces kinda feel manipulative. I know that’s nothing new with respect to advertising, and it’s just the way of the capitalist world. People need to sell stuff and not just make art. I definitely don’t dismiss the Interview Project though, and if I laugh it’s because the people are funny or great characters without some other agenda. They are themselves for the sake of being themselves. I think that allowed the producers to get the rich material they did and develop a more sincere relationship. I imagine if they had been selling a product or trying to keep it connected to a product they would have had to direct the interview/conversation in more deliberate manner. And though they obviously directed it through their questions they were free to go wherever the answers allowed as opposed to keeping to a narrative that related to a product/company.
Jarratt — I guess part of the misfortune of being a for-profit company is that even if you try to do something authentic, there will always be some skeptic who would impute some motive of commercial manipulation. Back in the 80’s (or was that already the early 90’s), I remember those Benetton ads with the multi-racial models who were chosen precisely because they’re supposed to represent the company’s concern for diversity.
But I also remember thinking that those were good looking multi-racial models. So even if the company was advancing a social cause, they still gotta do it with a certain commercial flourish. That’s similar to what you were saying about the interview being directed in a deliberate way (even though it’s supposed to be authentic) for the company to gain some commercial leverage.
Kevin — that’s precisely my point with the David Lynch videos. The concept is somewhat similar with the idea of having a couple go around the country Wal-marting. I haven’t watched the Walmart-sponsored blogging tour so I really can’t judge the merits of it in terms of authenticity and substance. The real difference is in how we, as audience, are being led to evaluate them. Walmart would want us to focus on the “value” they see in this production. Lynch, as an independent artist who don’t seek any financial gain from the interviews (as far as we know), is probably more concerned with the idea of “worth,” that intangible, unquantifiable sense of an object’s significance.
I am intrigued by the distinction between value and worth that Spreadable Media describes, and our videos this week well exemplify objects of worth but not value. In fact, I think the videos show us a much more fundamental definition of the value/worth dichotomy than the book’s example of the Nimoy napkin, which, despite appearing a mere four pages after the authors mention Amazon.com, is alleged to be of no value. I think the difference between this week’s videos, which have worth but not value, and the Wal-Mart video, which has value but little worth, has something to do with their degree of ordinariness.
The ordinary quality of Lynch’s videos is apparent, but finding the same characteristic in the Mapping Memories videos might be counterintuitive. The dramatic and life-changing events which the refugees to Canada occur prior to the focus of the refugees stories, and contextualize the central content of the MM presentations. Instead, the speakers focus on descriptions of otherwise ordinary events, like shopping for food, recollections of a family member, or love. This conjures empathy, and the viewer is struck by the familiarity of someone who otherwise appears quite different. The same is true of Lynch’s videos, and I believe that is the source of their power and worth- it is meaningful to find that an unfamiliar person bears intimate similarity with us, because it makes us feel an appreciation for the degree of our shared humanity with others that is commonly obscured from our routine lives. But who would pay to hear an ordinary story? And how could an ordinary story serve a specific market purpose?
And what do these questions portend for us as students of strategic communication? Grace, you are right- I can already tell I’ll be kept up thinking about why I can’t figure out how to understand this particular kind of meaning as a component of a value-based economy, which is both frustrating and intriguing. This is certainly a question I would like to pursue further.
Joel — People are indeed too complicated but what is a marketer or a communications professional to do? But I think that being able to recognize the complexity is already part of the solution, in terms of focusing our efforts — identifying and developing audience niches instead of seeking to preach to the whole crowd.
I don’t think complexity is an issue- the lesson for marketers is to recognize the boundary between value and worth, and respect it.