On the left is a piece of work featuring an east African republic, with a history of genocide, put together by a designer working for the British Government. On the right is a poster for a fictional dystopian film set in South Africa.

Welcome to propaganda marketed by Millennials. Is it as clumsy and deceitful as the ideas of the generation it seeks to represent?

MARKETING MISERY

Institute is about the communication of ideas. What’s a useful idea? What’s the context? How can we communicate your idea to the people you want to talk to?

Sometimes we hit a hurdle and this hurdle is the biggest we’ve seen for a long, long time. We are human and these are ideas that we want to share with other humans. These ideas usually turn into well meaning outputs and we usually jump into the development of these with a shared ambition to say what you want to say, efficiently, for the good of all, or at least in a way where no one gets hurt.

But what if we are dealing with ideas that could potentially harm our fellow humans? That’s not good. So, put the kettle on, find a comfy chair and lets discuss how we market misery, suffering and death.

KILLING HOPE

This campaign is designed to illustrate how a sitting government is taking dynamic steps to deal with an apparent crisis. This is a government that uses catch phrases and simple, get-it-done concepts as key foundations for its communications. Focusing on the achievement of results (regardless of consequence) works for them and it will likely continue until the point where it stops working.

We’re going at the edges of this. Maybe that’s because it’s easier, maybe we’re cowards. Maybe we just think that this goes beyond politics. To borrow from another group that travelled across seas and oceans in the search of a better life, the human rights under threat here, we believe to be self evident.

Let’s start breaking this down. It’s all about hordes of troublesome, potential immigrants and the gangs that orchestrate the logistics of their travel.

The pitch is that the goal is to stop immigration and the suffering of those involved in these dangerous journeys. The plan will dissuade them from embarking on these journeys in the future and if that fails then there is a mechanisms in place to physically export them to Rwanda.

You may argue that, considering the financial cost associated with these plans, either way, we, the public don’t get to see them, and that is the key political goal here. One strand of this pitch is apparently about changing perceptions and the other is about the politics of a human and their requirements within a state. It’s a belt and braces approach. What’s not to like?

If that wasn’t problematic enough in terms of the Immigration plan, the marketing for this is largely hidden away in Facebook ads or in other discreet media outlets. These ads are paid for by this government and they are targeted to discreet audiences. This might give you an idea of the real audiences these ads are aimed at…

Make it stand out

Whatever it is, the way you tell your story online can make all the difference.

The premise is that this is part of the two pronged strategy- this is to dissuade potential immigrants and traffickers from embarking on a journey to the UK. Its about killing that dream. How would you target that specific audience? How would you deal with the varied languages? Are you using international ads? Do they even Facebook?

This isn’t what it says on the tin. This is for a specific British audience and its about affirmation of political ideas. The headline: New measures will make it harder for you to reach and remain in the UK is disingenuous to say the least. It should read, them. We are talking about them, those, those other than us.

Did they use specific science fiction tropes to indicate the other, the alien? We’ll look into this later but it does seem that this is a result of visual ignorance and lack of empathy rather than the development of a sinister visual language. The colour purple has been injected into the design of the ads above. Why do you think they did that? Is this about bleakness, alienation, isolation? Is this clever in an evil genius way or is it just clumsy?

Is doing something that’s bad, badly, good? Are we lucky that this could be something bad, done well and that would be really bad? How confusing. This equation doesn’t usually involve bad at the start and you have to wonder what was going through people’s minds when they embarked upon this campaign. We’ll come back to this point.

LET’S PRETEND THAT THIS IS HONEST COMMUNICATIONS

There is an argument that immigration isn’t really a problem, that making it a problem, is a political act. There is strong evidence to suggest that this initiative will not stop new journeys across the channel and that immigrants to Rwanda often stay for a limited time and then re-attempt the same journey or a new journey with a different destination, across Africa. It is difficult to maintain the idea that this initiative will stop gangs of human traffickers.

This campaign is used across social media. This is probably largely aimed at voters but we are hearing that this messaging is supposed to reach potential immigrants and to dissuade them from making the journey across the channel. If they are the ultimate audience and a proportion of them will die each year, this audience shrinks slightly but is replenished by new potential immigrants. If the messaging is supposed to end up with gang leaders, is the plan that they reassess the viability of their business in relation to this messaging?

Marketeers involved in the delivery of these campaigns are usually obsessed with audiences and data. Is death ignored here in the same way that we could say, the elderly receiving messages about the NHS will lose a proportion of their demographic as they die each year?

DOING BAD, BADLY

We believe that the underlying immigration campaign was designed by FCB INFERNO and that the Rwanda campaign was produced by Digital teams at no 10 or The Home Office in or collaboration across these teams. We asked key members but have not received a response. FCB INFERNO’s contribution was disclosed under a freedom of information act and the specifics of their involvement was addressed in an online article.

Looking through social media profiles, the Digital teams seem to be mostly in their mid to late 20s, career ambitious and proud to be producing ‘hard hitting’ work. Across government social media the campaigns produced are simple, clear and statement orientated. A few minutes of scrolling through Home Office feeds though, could make you feel that you’d been hit by an emotional truck. We accomplished this, here’s the numbers, we stopped this, we made this happen, more numbers, we made these people do this, rinse and repeat. All of these communications assume that the audience is okay with these decisions. The bullet points, the numbers, the evidence of accomplishments are brutally stark and the output is a bizarre visual soup of disjointed ideas, executed in mundane and inappropriate ways.

This is propaganda and it’s badly done. The visual language emerges out of the online ad space. There is very little understanding of graphic language or typography. The layouts are clumsy and the colour choices are just…silly.

Here’s an example from the New Plan for Immigration campaign. This is an animated sequence and shown above are four of the key frames. We are presented with a Union Jack background and a bold, positive logo. That tells us that something very patriotic is going on, its a bold endeavour and its progressive. Then we get a short story highlighting activities. People with no right to be in the UK were removed. The audience has to believe that this is a good thing. Is there context? It turns out that they are foreign, they are offenders and they are trying to abuse the British asylum system. The numbers are a counter and the 246 shown here shoots up to 527.

Why is this so simplistic? Why spend literal time on counting numbers? That border animates- it makes a journey around the square. It has a notch in the top left as if the frame somehow has 3 dimensions. The text and frame is in a bizarre lobster pink. Why do you think that is? Why would the designer spend time messing around with that silly frame? We are told that the information is about 527 criminals convicted of rape, manslaughter & attempted murder. Is that the colour of rape? Is that the colour of offence of any kind? What does the frame signify? Would it be inappropriate to suggest that someone involved in this wished that those attempted murders were actual murders? That would really hammer the point home. Is that statement a step too far? This is what happens to your rationality when you try to score political points within dehumanised systems of your own making.

In the same way that you could argue that these policy statements show little human empathy, the visual language is a step removed from the subject matter. Why are the people making policy and the designers involved in these communications one step removed from the subject and not displaying the competence usually required with these roles? Shouldn’t these roles attract the best of the best? Both of these parties are telling us that they are doing a good job.

Priti Patel has been working with a Digital team to produce a series of ‘hard hitting’ pieces about the ‘big issues’. This is a campaign where various people are brought in and filmed with Patel while she patronises them and turns what they say into sound bites. We know the way these people are treated could be better. We know it’s politics, we’re used to the ins and outs of that but it’s even more depressing for us when we see creatives collaborating in this way. It’s complicated and we maybe have a romantic view, but there was a time when the decision to go into the arts was a statement of intent. A willingness to see the world in new ways, to drive our culture forward, to enhance humanity, even if we’re stumbling along, doing our best in quite a humble way.

As the world of politics continues to change within a larger culture that continues to change, more and more young people are entering the arts. With that comes a larger spread of views and larger pools of roles available post University. Young creatives are increasingly seeing design, not as a process but as the way things look. The word aesthetic is now being used to purely mean, the visual. Design should be a process, not decoration. Contemporary creative courses and Industry should not be encouraging young creatives to be blandly professional and to do the stuff that looks like, the stuff. We shouldn’t know what the stuff should looks like until the end of the process. We used to know how to manage this danger and we valued the rewards.

Creatives must be ready to see things differently, to ask questions and they must take some cultural responsibility for the things that they produce. In the same way, those that are more experienced should be fostering an environment where questioning everything from the start is promoted as a healthy thing to do. They should be providing frameworks that have space for the development of appropriate outcomes- original outcomes, fit for humans, that contribute to society in meaningful ways.

The Digital teams across government should be asking themselves: ‘Did I take a career misstep? Should I really be in the cake decoration industry? Is that a vocation better suited to my abilities?’ When you are decorating a cake, the cakes been made. You don’t have to take any responsibility for the main job. With any luck, it’s delicious and if not, that’s not your fault. As long as it doesn’t contain anything that causes an allergic reaction and you don’t drop it, it’s all good. You only have to decorate it. There’s the top to deal with, maybe the sides if you’re feeling adventurous. Just grab that pink icing and start drawing silly things on the surface and then stand back and celebrate your genius. Voila! Your job is done.

This is the level that these people are operating at. It doesn’t matter what kind of cake it is, it doesn’t matter if its poisonous. It’s cake and cakes are amazing, therefore what they do is amazing. They messed around with some icing on the top. They drew a boat. The icing was pink and sugary and no one complained about how badly drawn the boat was. The boss loved it. They took a photo of it, put that on social media. Job done. Congratulations.

Maybe we’re making this more complicated than it is. Could it just be that bad ideas attract bad creatives?

KEEPING TALLY

Within a studio designers and artworkers are usually encouraged to take responsibility for the production of their work. They need to check if the work is the right dimensions, the logos are correct, messaging, colours, fonts are all good before they hit save and pass the work on to be published in one or more formats. They don’t usually have to assess human suffering. At what point is this discussed? Does the manager take responsibility or the artworker? Is there a debate between the manager and someone else at the Cabinet Office? How much of the messaging comes from an external source or is this creative team producing the messaging? With this change of policy does the creative team take note of the people that die each year before and after this campaign? If so and the tally of deaths is higher after a year of this new policy in place, do they resign? What kind of yardstick do they use to measure their contribution to our culture? If one of their audience dies they are no longer part of any culture.

CONTEXT NEUTRAL

In a situation like this, how do we measure success? What metrics do we use? Is this the continuation of the speech writer that wrote those memorable lines that helped get President X elected? This is just contemporary political communications right? In this situation, the digital communications emerging on social media are either incredibly naive or fuelled by some of the tricks we’ve already played out in dystopian future fiction.

You may be forgiven for thinking that the idea of social media savvy really just describes an ability to use the software, place text and images in bland but satisfactory configurations, and to remain conscience and context neutral at all times.

It’s at times like this, that we realise how lucky we are. We are managing to work with talented young creatives that we learn from every day, that often show more creativity, grace and common sense than we do.

ARE WE THE BAD GUYS?

“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing. He is not a good man who, without a protest, allows wrong to be committed in his name, and with the means which he helps to supply, because he will not trouble himself to use his mind on the subject."

-John Stuart Mill

For a very long time, most societies have incorporated groups of people capable of helping to deliver ideas that change society. These ideas have affected peoples states of mind; their sense of self, their perceptions of themselves in groups, their sense of urgency, their understanding of geographical location and boundaries, their concepts of ownership, power structures and their understandings of right and wrong.

Just because we can do a thing doesn’t mean that we should do a thing.

WITH THE MEANS WHICH HE HELPS TO SUPPLY

Imagine a gentleman with a German accent and a name that sounded a little like gerbils, approaching us with this brief: “I’d like you to help my brand conquer Europe. My blue eyed mates need a bit more room, y’know? Oh and we don’t like those guys…”

We know how this works. First of all, you need borrow from The Romans. They were pretty good at this style of branding. You’re going to need some compelling justifications for this. We could hijack some religion, maybe grab some pseudo-science? Your tone of voice needs to be a little shouty. Three colours will really show authority. You’re also going to need some sharp uniforms and we’ve got a cracking idea for a logo.

This stuff is easy in retrospect for those trained in this area and we’ve seen how well it works.

Tucker Carlson, a US media celebrity with a prime time spot on the Fox network promotes a fairly disturbing agenda and this isn’t inhibited by the fact that he’s never owned a TV. He has a writer. A second writer actually. The first one had to be dismissed when caught contributing to extreme right wing message boards.

Neo fascist organisations cite Carlson as the guy they learn from when they want to communicate across media outlets where tiki torches and white pointy hats are not quite de rigueur. There are certain tricks the writer uses that hint at certain ideas (if you know what you’re looking for) but seem innocuous enough to be palatable during prime time.

It is not impossible to imagine providing media advice and support that would galvanise opinion around extreme organisations that would eventually result in deaths. Should we do that? Of course not. But where is the line for those responsible for the communication of political ideas? If a political party is elected, it has a mandate. Does a creative employed by that party have a conscience free obligation to help them communicate? Are they in the clear if they are an office for communications that serves whichever party is currently in power?

REAL LIVES, REAL CONCERNS

Did that designer agree with the politics behind this social media campaign? Did they consider potential implications for those migrants? What were they thinking when they hit the save button? Do we, as creatives, take responsibility for communicating any ideas to the best of our ability or do we need to take a larger responsibility when these ideas can potentially lead to misery and death for thousands of people?

A quick web search prior to launch would have provided a host of questions and concerns around various humanitarian, economic, and logistical consequences of this plan. How were these fairly obvious concerns processed by the designer?

PUBLICLY AVAILABLE CRITICISM AVAILABLE PRIOR TO LAUNCH

The UK > Rwanda Migration Partnership is part of The New Plan for Immigration policy. Below is an open letter by refugee Action that criticises the plan and the consultation process surrounding the plan. This is The New Plan for Immigration policy statement.

JOINT OPEN LETTER IN RESPONSE TO NEW PLAN FOR IMMIGRATION CONSULTATION

On 23rd March 2021, the UK Government announced sweeping changes to how they will treat people seeking safety in the UK. Instead of fixing a system that’s been failing people for years, these changes take a wrecking ball to the very principle of asylum.

The UK Government has since invited public feedback on these plans. This would usually be a chance to challenge their plans, raise important details and hold the Government to account. But, as with the inquiry stage for the recent Sewell Report on institutional racism, this consultation is a sham.

The ‘New Plan for Immigration’ is a half-baked political manifesto. It lays out vague, unworkable, cruel and potentially unlawful plans justified by misleading or simply incorrect evidence, wrapped up in racist and divisive language.
The consultation is poorly designed, confusing and inaccessible. The documents are only available in English and Welsh. The questions are clearly designed to lead people into endorsing the Government’s plan.
The Government left people fewer than six working weeks to give their thoughts on the largest changes to the asylum system in two decades.
Normally consultations like this last at least 12 weeks. These six weeks also include Easter holidays, a May bank holiday, Ramadan and an election period during which those involved in local, mayoral and devolved nation elections are restricted in what they can say publicly.
Most incredibly, this consultation does not prioritise the views and experiences of refugees and people seeking asylum. Not one question in the official consultation document asks people about their personal experiences of fleeing persecution or seeking safety in the UK. And the inaccessible process will make it more difficult for many of the most important voices of all to be heard.

This is not a process designed by a Government that genuinely wants to listen or has any interest in being challenged or changing its approach. We can only conclude this is a thinly veiled public relations exercise with a pre-determined outcome that we’ve been reading about on the front pages of newspapers for months.

It seems the Government has already forgotten the shameful legacy of Windrush. Just weeks ago, the Home Office signed a legal agreement requiring the department to properly consider the impacts of its policies on the groups of people they affect. It is our view that the Home Office has already failed to meet this commitment.

This Government already punishes refugees at every turn. Instead of fixing this injustice, they are doubling down on it. They are planning to leave traumatised people stuck in refugee camps on UK soil or in dangerous situations abroad. Their proposals are cruel, unjust and deadly.

“We believe in a caring and connected society, where everyone is included, and we can all thrive. These plans are a direct threat to that society. We will oppose them at every possible stage, and keep building the future we believe in.”

This letter is signed by the following parties:

#Together100
Abigail Housing
African Rainbow Family
All Out
Anti-Slavery International
ASIRT (Birmingham)
ASSIST Sheffield
Asylum Link Merseyside
Asylum Matters
Asylum Support Appeals Project
Asylum Welcome (Oxford)
Association of Visitors to Immigration Detainees (AVID)

Bail For Immigration Detainees
Baobab Women’s Project CIC
BeHarrogate District of Sanctuary
Belfast Islamic Centre
Belfast Multi-Cultural Association
Ben & Jerry’s Europe
Blandford Cares (Dorset)
Boaz Trust
Bradford City of Sanctuary
Bradford Rape Crisis & Sexual Abuse Survivors Service
Bristol Refugee Rights

Cambridge Convoy Refugee Action Group
Cambridge Refugee Resettlement Campaign
Caritas Shrewsbury
CAST-COMMUNITIES AND SANCTUARY SEEKERS TOGETHER (Southend)
Central Asylum Yorkshire
Cheshire, Halton & Warrington Race & Equality Centre
Citizens Advice Rotherham
City of Sanctuary Sheffield
City of Sanctuary UK
Co-Conveners Brighton & Hove Stand Up To Racism
Committee on the Administration of Justice, Belfast
Community Action for Refugees and Asylum Seekers
Croeso Menai Community Sponsorship Group
Cornwall Refugee Resource Network
Coventry Refugee & Migrant Centre

Darlington Assistance for Refugees
Derby City of Sanctuary Network
Derby Refugee Forum
Derbyshire Refugee Solidarity
Detention Action
Detention Forum
Devon and Cornwall Refugee Support
Displaced People In Action
Doctors of the World
Doncaster Conversation Club
Durham Student Action for Refugees

ECPAT
End Deportations Belfast
English+, Norwich
Enthum Foundation (East Sussex)
Entraide (Mutual Aid)
Ethnic Minority Sports Organisation Northern Ireland
Europe Must Act

Falmouth & Penryn Welcome Refugees
Family Refugee Support Project (GM)
Faversham and Villages Refugee Solidarity Group
Finchley Reform Synagogue
Freedom From Torture
Friends of the Drop-in for asylum seekers and refugees (FODI), Sunderland

Galeforce Productions Universal CIC
GARAS (Gloucester)
Gatwick Detainees Welfare Group
Govan Community Project
Greater Manchester Immigration Aid Unit
Growing Together Levenshulme

Hastings Community of Sanctuary
HASVO Harrow
Health Energy Advice Team (Liverpool)
Helen Bamber Foundation/Asylum Aid
Heart4Refugees, Wirral
Herts for Refugees
Home4U Cardiff
Hope and Aid Direct (Essex)
Hope and Dignity Hearth (Sheffield)
Horn of Africa People’s Aid Northern Ireland (HAPANI)
Host Nottingham
House of Guramayle
House Of Rainbow CIC (London)
Hull Help for Refugees
Humans for Rights Network

Institute of Race Relations
Ipswich and Suffolk Council for Racial Equality

JCORE (Jewish Council for Racial Equality)
Jesuit Refugee Service UK
Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI)
Justice First – Stockton
Kent Refugee Action Network
Khai Tzedek CIC (Stoke)

LASS Lesbian Asylum Support Sheffield
Learn for Life Enterprise
Leeds Asylum Seekers Support Network
Leicester City of Sanctuary
Lesbian Immigration Support Group
Lewisham Refugee and Migrant Network
LGBT+ Consortium
Liberal Democrats for Seekers of Sanctuary
Light Up Black and African Heritage Calderdale
Liverpool City of Sanctuary

Manchester Migrant Solidarity
Manchester Refugee Support Network
Manuel Bravo Project
Mary Seacole House
Mary Thompson Fund
Maryhill Integration Network, Glasgow
Maternity Action
Medical Justice
Mermaids
Merseyside Law Centre
Merseyside Refugee Support Network
Micro Rainbow
Mid Wales Refugee Action
Migrant Action
Migrant Advisory Service (Kingston)
Migrant Advocacy Service
Migrant Voice
Migrants at Work (Oxford)

NACCOM
New Beginnings Project, Blackburn YMCA
New Routes Integration (Norwich)
North of England Refugee Service
North West Migrants Forum
Northern Ireland Women’s Budget Group
Norwich City of Sanctuary
Notre Dame Refugee Centre
Nottingham & Notts Refugee Forum
Nottingham Arimathea Trust

One and All Aid
Ozanne Foundation

PAFRAS
Penrith and Eden Refugee Network
Plymouth Hope
Positive Action in Housing
Pro Refugee Alliance
Project 17 (London)

Quaker Asylum and Refugee Network

Rainbow Home
RAS Voice
Reading Refugee Support Group
Reclaim the Agenda
Refugee Action
Refugee Action in Somerset East
Refugee Action Kingston
Refugee Compassion (Ayelsbury)
Refugee Rights Europe
Refugee Roots, Nottingham
Refugee Support Group, South Somerset
Refugee Women Connect (Liverpool)
Refugees Welcome Committee (Ken and Chel)
Rene Cassin
ReportOUT
Restore, a project of Birmingham Churches Together
Right to Remain
Ripon City of Sanctuary
Rural Refugee Network

Safe in Scotland
Safe Passage
Safety4Sisters North West
Sahir House
Samphire
SHARE (Supporting and Helping Asylum seekers and Refugees) Knowsley
South Yorkshire Refugee Law & Justice
Sanctuary on Sea (Brighton and Hove City of Sanctuary)
Scottish Refugee Council
ShipShape Health and wellbeing
Shropshire Supports Refugees
Solace Leeds
South Yorkshire Migration and Asylum Action Group
South Yorkshire Refugee Law & Justice
Southwark Day Centre for Asylum Seekers
St Augustine’s Centre, Halifax
Stafford Welcomes Refugees
Stonewall Equality
Student Action for Refugees
Sussex Interpreting Services

Tees Valley of Sanctuary
The Bridge + (Norfolk)
The Oasis Centre, Gorton
The Refugee Buddy Project Hastings, Rother & Wealden
The Voice of Domestic Workers
The Welcoming Association, Edinburgh, Scotland
The Well Multi-Cultural Resource Centre Glasgow
Theatre Company of Sanctuary (Southampton)
Thousand 4 £1,000
Time to be Out (York)
TransgenderNI
Trinity Safe Space, Halton
Trinity Safe Spaces, Runcorn and Widnes

UK Lesbian and Gay Immigration Group (UKLGIG)
UK Welcomes Refugees
Upbeat Communities

Vauxhall Community Law Centre
Voices in Exile
Voices in Exile (Brighton and Sussex)

Waging Peace
Wakefield District City of Sanctuary
Wandsworth Welcomes Refugees
Welsh Refugee Council
West End Refugee Service
Westminster Justice and Peace Commission
Wiltshire For Refugees
Wirral Change
Women for Refugee Women
Women With Hope
Women’s Resource and Development Agency (Northern Ireland)

Yarl’s Wood Befrienders
Young Roots

How did the designer process this? “Their proposals are cruel, unjust and deadly.” Surely these organisations have more knowledge on the subject than the designer? They are clearly concerned. When the plan hit the news outlets and more concerns, from more sources, started to air, did any of the team resign?

This information was easily available to the designer. If they were handed the brief in the morning, they could search online for this information at lunch time. If they received the brief in the afternoon, then they could find this information that night. Could we imagine that the team received the brief and the turn over was so fast that they didn’t have time to consider the implications? Within The Cabinet Office Digital team is there any room to boycott a given brief?

NEUTRAL POLITICAL COMMUNICATIONS?

What is the role of social media for a sitting government? To question policy? Communicate policy? Discuss or inform on the impact of policy? Aren’t there more democratic, productive and open ways that we could use these platforms rather than streaming propaganda? If those involved in political policy and those communicating it can’t behave in a sensible way, maybe we should play them at their own game and take away their toys?

In 1988, Fritz Gahagan, a former marketing consultant for US big tobacco, provided insight into the fundamental paradox faced by the tobacco industry: “The problem is how do you sell death? How do you sell a poison that kills 350,000 people per year, 1000 people a day?”

Television advertising of tobacco products was banned in the UK in 1965 under the Television Act 1964, which was later reinforced by an EU directive in the 1980s. The Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002 banned the direct and indirect advertising or promotion of tobacco products. In May 2016, the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016 introduced tighter restrictions in relation to certain vaping products and electronic cigarettes. Standardised packaging for these products has been required since this time.

Could we imagine a system where political messaging was allowed one statement, had to be fact checked and had to be set in Helvetica and this could only be presented in black and white? This is a what if? proposition. Here’s another what if? Imagine a world where we all cared more about the lives of those other than us. A world where creatives believed that they had a role in society to question our norms and values and to express this investigation through their creativity, for the benefit of our culture. This requires as much discipline as it requires creativity. It does require some brave decisions at some points and some risk at others but the rewards are worth it. The rewards can be life affirming. They get us closer to the truth and occasionally these interventions become part of our cultural history. They become a flag in the sand, a clarion call urging us to do better.

THE CALL TO ACTION BIT

This is the end of the article and it’s the time where we think about a suitable call to action. This is traditionally a message and a link to somewhere that’s related to the subject. But this time its a different kind of call to action and it’s just this: before you hit save, just stop and think. Are you doing the right thing?

How to Market Misery, Suffering and Death