In 2017, 122 governments (representing 63% of the international community) voted in favour of the TPNW (Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons), looking to end once and for all, the threat that, post-Cold War, is evermore present. Currently, nine countries in the world possess nuclear arms, including weapons with a destructive capacity up to one-thousand times greater than the one launched 73 years ago over Hiroshima.

This is why the International Committee of the Red Cross wants to urge all governments to comply with the TPNW, while simultaneously raising awareness amongst the public regarding the gravity of the situation. The campaign seeks to target young people in particular, as they are less aware of the reality and destructive consequences of these weapons.

The idea is clear: in the extreme case of nuclear war, the choice between life and death would be equally disastrous.

From this idea was born “Choose”. A story of two friends discussing their futures in the hypothetical case of a nuclear war, and the consequences their choices would have. One of them chooses to live: dying would mean no longer being able to see family, to travel, to fall in love…in short, to live. And yet, the other chooses to die, for exactly the same reasons his friend mentioned. Because living through a nuclear war would mean not seeing his family, not being able to travel, to fall in love…in short, to live.

This plot twist leaves the friends reflecting on the true significance of a nuclear war. As we see expressed by the overprint, it’s important that we decide the future of nuclear arms before they decide ours.

Our strategy, put simply, was to craft a piece that created a strong emotional connection with the audience. We didn’t want viewers to be able to watch the spot from an outsider’s perspective, from the point of view that this could never happen. “These things only happen in sci-fi movies; it’s impossible this could actually happen”. That’s why we tell a story that is very close to home: the future of two ordinary people, told from two very different points of view where both endings culminate in tragedy.

We can all identify with one or the other, because the terrible question is one any of us could answer. The strategic part of the idea, therefor—what causes us to reflect and put ourselves in the shoes of the spot’s protagonists—is the moral that takes over the end: choosing life or death would be irrelevant; both options would be disastrous.

We created a cinematographic short lasting 1’ 50” with a budget of 80K. It was launched on social media 11 February 2019. In order to give the piece the maximum amount of realism and credibility possible, all scenes were shot outside and on location with a bare minimum of post-production involved.

The spot was translated into more than 10 languages and distributed via YouTube by more than 90 delegations of the Red Cross around the world. Moreover, all digital platforms related to the International Committee of the Red Cross were used to make sure that the film reach every corner of the world.

The campaign has been seen in at least 25 countries (including online, print media, broadcast) with 1MM views in less than two months. The campaign has been covered in Europe, Asia, Middle East and North Africa, Africa and Latin America.

Visibility was driven during launch by the Irish Head of the Arms unit, who was featured by several media outlets. The Irish source referenced the two ICRC videos and mentioned that ICRC ‘works closely with governments on issues relating to weapons.’

Many individuals retweeted ICRC’s “Choose”, expressing concerns regarding such a crisis. Notable accounts who relayed such messages are Vidya Shankar Aiyar, former adviser for the Indian Prime Minister’s nuclear disarmament group and Jean-Marie Collin, spokesperson for ICAN France.

Countries like Thailand, Germany and The Netherlands adapted the campaign for local audiences, generating public debates that have reached their respective governmental bodies regarding adherence to the TPNA.