On the positive side, "value" would indicate importance to operational processes and, ultimately, business success. This includes all aspects of TCO, both tangible and intangible, absolute and derived. On the negative side, "value" relates to the adverse impact the operation will suffer (in some form) if that asset's value is lost or compromised. As such, the asset's value should be monetized to set a financial benchmark against which to evaluate what protective methods (technical and non-technical) would be suitable to safeguard it ("operational effectiveness" is assumed).
This is only half the equation. One must consider threat sources and characteristics when making such evaluations with equally critical thinking.

To your point about application of "the same level of protections" - such an approach would reflect a "one size fits all or most" course. This approach has historically produced gross mismatches of protections to assets. Setting a policy that outlines a program to protect all assets in ways commensurate with their established values, operational importance and their specific characteristics will, when properly followed to guide actual proection implementations, will produce the results you want: contextually appropriate and operationally effective controls.

It's abslutely NO true that you can't protect your assets. It depends on money and your definition of the "assets." So, before I comment further, the first step is to be very specific about your company's "high value assets." What are they and how important is their protection to your core business?
I will not comment on how to protect "them" without that.
Products? Technology? Trade Secrets? Patents?