It is only a slight typo but I came here because I read the but and thought that perhaps the dictator or ultimate game produced different results in Japanese culture. I think that one of them does. Yamagishi?

Speaking of which while I enjoyed the article, it is a shame that you did not include any references to allow readers could look up the details. Authors’ names would have done fine. Fortunately, and gratefully, managed to search for “Malwian” “poster” and the question phrase that you quote above.

Just in case your readers are interested here is the reference to the second study with the poster of the starving Malawian, obtained using zotero from the pdf. I can’t remember ever having cried from reading a paper before but after reading the conclusion, the images at then were so nicely done….
Slovic, P. (2007). If I look at the mass I will never act”: Psychic numbing and genocide. Judgment and Decision Making, 2(2), 79–95. Retrieved on 14th March 2012 from http://journal.sjdm.org/jdm7303a.pdf

http://www.cidfa.com/modules/watch.php?vid=48

- ‘OMB is a different approach to activism‘ – I have to disagree with you here. In fact, nowadays I would say that your approach is becoming the norm. The combination of participatory visual components combined with education / awareness raising and advocacy is relatively well established (and every INGO combines fund raising with activism as standard). The ‘Million Faces’ petition of the Control Arms Campaign organised jointly be Oxfam, Amnesty International and IANSA is one example, but there is a multitude of ‘user generated content’ initiatives out there (another is the work of ‘Circle Up Now’). OMB’s integrated approach could be said to be a good example of this, but I think it is a stretch to say it is ‘different’.

- Not valuing traditional forms of mass activism – well, yes Naomi does say they are ‘important’ but then goes on to say they don’t really work as not enough people take part, which to me suggests that she thinks they aren’t that valuable. However, that is not particularly important compared to the next point, that ‘making it possible for individuals to SEE the impact of their action will encourage even more people to participate‘. I think this confuses ‘outputs’, ‘outcomes’ and ‘impact’. If I produce a bone and it is installed on the Mall in Washington that is an output from my action. That is not impact as nothing has changed. If the US Congress passes a bill relevant to the campaigns objectives, that could be an outcome. But impact only happens when the beneficiaries (an by that I mean the rights holders, not the organisations who get the money from your initiative) experience a change in their lives (hopefully positive and in line with what they wanted). I agree that seeing your activism manifest visually in a huge public display is potentially empowering and may encourage future activism, but this is just as susceptible as other forms of activism to being an eventual disappointment if nothing in the real world actually changes. As Naomi says in the video, an action must be followed by a reaction.

- ‘Art is an incredibly powerful tool‘ – I think just repeating this phrase is not helpful, and certainly does not make it true. Firstly, it is too broad – not all art is powerful. Context, application and timing are all important factors that dictate the power of individual activism tools. Also, you need to be specific about what it is powerful for – mobilisation and inspiring people to participate, probably. But again, this does not necessarily transform into the desired outcome with decision makers etc. (I refer back to my original point about why this is more powerful than actual images of genocide?). I am also not sure that the OMB installation will have a different outcome than a one million postcard petition. The visual impact will certainly be different, no arguments there. But will decision makers choose a different option due to the activism form – I am not sure about that. Aavaz has been successful in campaigning on multiple causes by using a rather uninspiring form of activism – web petitions. Policy makers (particularly in robust democracies) are bothered by numbers. I would also dispute that ‘genocide is ignored’ – the mobilisation to human rights violations in Darfur managed to create a popular movement not seen in the US since the Viet Nam war. China got hammered and made some changes to its policy. The ICC acted. Stuff happened. It might not have been all those campaigning wished for but it was certainly not ignored.

- ‘Working with young people‘ – As I mentioned above, I think this part of your initiative looks good and will probably work very well in educational institutions.

- “What we want to create, what we want the world to see is an enormous, visible, can’t possibly be ignored call for our government to get serious about supporting the peaceful resolution of issues around the world. The specifics of what a policy ask might look like will be based on the political climate and current world situation in 2013, and will be crafted in conjunction with advice and support from our beneficiary organizations” – Many people, when planning a campaign make a sandwich without an filling. They identify a problem then skip to the action form, missing out the important and often difficult thinking inbetween. Wanting to create an ‘enormous, visible…call’ without have specific objectives sets yourself up for failure. A good campaign knows EXACTLY what it is calling for and maps out a critical path of how it will get there. Only then does it develop the appropriate communication and activism tools needed to influence the people who can make those objectives a reality. ‘Supporting the peaceful resolution of issues around the world’ is so broad it is probably unrealisable, and certainly unmeasurable. No one can predict the future political climate, that is why campaign plans need to be flexible and you build in evaluations and adjustments as your work progresses. But your policy ask should be clear now. The fact you don’t have this would raises serious question if I were thinking about joining your campaign. Having vague objectives may discourage people from taking part – people want to know what the end result will be and if you can’t tell them then they will find another campaign that is more focused. If you are honest and say, “This is a big fund raiser for these other organisations who are doing good work“, then your lack of specificity will probably be OK.

‘OMB believes there is no one correct path to the change we want to see and so every honest effort to move people to action, to educate, to engage is important. We cannot sit idly by waiting for the perfect method of making change happen. OMB is one part of the path to change and our commitment is strong‘ – I agree that there are usually multiple ways we can try to bring about change. And we do not know what will ultimately work, or work best. That is not the same as some initiatives turning out to be better than others, or some being better planned or thought out. Many of the techniques and tools of strategic campaigning can be tedious and are not guarantees for success, but they are there to clarify thinking and allow you to evaluate your work. I don’t think anyone is suggesting we ‘sit idly by’ but equally that doesn’t mean we should throw everything at the wall and see what sticks. You are equally accountable to all those who take part, give money and on whose behalf you say you are working (with or for).

The points above are made as constructive criticism and in the spirit of open debate. It is certainly useful for me to look at projects like yours and analyse their different elements. Personally, I would be very interested to see how your work progresses, and REP will be very willing to offer you space in the future to feedback on how things are progressing.

Best

Rob