An award tells you more about the judges than the contestants.

I’m not talking about “Britain’s got an Xfactor talent” shows.

 

This is the view of Mark Phillips of the “queer ideas blog”. Not sure I agree with it yet.

 

He’s reporting on the D&AD awards, and in particular relating to their brief for student teams to "present an idea that engages support for Oxfam by triggering shared values and concerns in a wide range of people."

 

I agree completely with Mark when he says the winner “fails on almost every level”.  I don’t want to hear about people who work for Oxfam who dream of doing something completely different.  I want the staff at my accountants to love their job, never mind the staff at my world changing charities.

 

I want to hear about people who work for Oxfam because they’re helping me fulfil my dream of a world without poverty.  I want to hear about people like me and how WE are solving problems through Oxfam.

 

I’d like to see a world that doesn’t need Oxfam, but I don’t want to see the end of Oxfam.  They’re not the same thing.

 

For a while, I thought the problem might be the brief?  That “a wide range of people” made the entrants try to appeal to everyone and so no-one.  But looking again at the entries, I don’t think they did, I think they picked a broad group and tried to appeal to them.

 

So perhaps Mark is right – it does say more about the judges than the competitors.

 

Which is why I was surprised to see that 2 of the 7 judges were from Oxfam.

 

You should read Mark’s full post

 

Mark holds up Amy Weston (from Sheffield College) as someone that does understand what motivates people to give. Give. Grow. Gain.

 

Imagine this, but with an Oxfam online space for sharing tips, pics etc on how your Give Grow Gain is going, what you’re planning to do with them, alongside stories of how the donations are helping.

 

 

 

Posted via email from mikemuses's posterous