Episode 11: Strategic Communication
Dr. Deepak Gupta has over 28 years of experience as a program and strategic communication advisor for various UN agencies - including UNFPA, UNODC, UNICEF and WHO. He has designed and managed numerous large strategic communication interventions and advocacy campaigns on various development and health issues. His work on risk communication strategies in emergency situations, such as post-tsunami situations and avian influenza contexts, is particularly well noted. He is also a master trainer and expert faculty member at a number of different Institutes, where he leads courses related to strategic communication for development, and has also published extensively on strategic communication issues. He joins us from New Delhi, India.
He speaks to us about:
The difference between C4D and corporate marketing
Rejecting the prescriptive approach to development
Participatory methods
The importance of interpersonal communication human touch
Overcoming challenges through catalytic change agents
The pros and cons of social media
Misinformation and rumours
Contextualizing communication programs within local cultural settings
COVID-19 strategic communication failures - and more!
Transcript
Intro: We need to absolutely, absolutely keep aside the prescriptive approach in our development. You know, we prescribe development, which I think is not a good idea. Development is about engaging with people, helping them themselves to redefine development. What does development mean to them? The entire concept of imposing or rather bringing what a Western culture says or feels, and bringing it on to the south or what we say as "the developing world" - I think that time is over. Any service that we are talking about, as a part of development - I think there are three key words we need to work around - accessibility, quality and affordability, with equity.
Safa: Welcome back to the Rethinking Development Podcast. My name is Safa, and I'm your host. Thank you for joining me as we speak with and learn from practitioners of all career stages and different organizational affiliations around the world. In our conversations, we aim to rethink ethical behavior and best practices through the lived experiences and personal reflections of different practitioners. Our guest today is Dr. Deepak Gupta. Dr. Gupta has over 28 years of experience as a program and strategic communication advisor for various UN agencies, including UNFPA, UNODC, UNICEF and WHO. He has designed and managed numerous large strategic communication interventions and advocacy campaigns on various development and health issues. His work on risk communication strategies in emergency situations, such as post-tsunami situations and avian influenza contexts, is particularly well noted. He is also a master trainer and expert faculty member at a number of different Institutes, where he leads courses related to strategic communication for development, and has also published extensively on strategic communication issues. Dr. Gupta, thank you so much for speaking with us today.
Deepak: Thank you Safa.
Safa: To begin the conversation, could you share a bit more about why you were interested in studying strategic communication and what motivated you to begin working in development, especially with this focus on public health issues?
Deepak: In fact, I started working in the urban slums in the city of Delhi in the mid 80s and late 80s, pursuing my college studies in the university. And you just name the issue, and I think we had a problem there, whether it was clean drinking water, whether it was child mortality or maternal health issues, particularly girl child, I mean, them going to school on a regular basis. Then one realized that I think it was basically the development communication that plays the real fulcrum in the development and health paradigm. It's about connecting with people, empowering them with the information and knowledge resources, and enabling them to bring about positive changes in their lives. If we paradrop ourselves into any community - as a third party, whether we are a donor, or we are an NGO, I think it doesn't work like that. It has to be participated, you have to engage with people, you have to actually sit down with them to design processes. For example, I actually realized that there were schemes available in the government, and those were not properly conveyed to these people, they did not understand them correctly, because the messages were not very clear, the tools used to communicate with the urban slums, perhaps, were not those tools as required. So I think there and then I decided that I think this is one major missing link. And that really excited me for my further academic preparation and also for my work. I think that was a turning point, where I decided that I need to work in the area of strategic communication that would empower people, that would of course be helping them in adapting to the more positive lifestyles and positive behaviors. So yeah, I think this was it.
Safa: Sometimes when people think about strategic communication, communication for development, there's this question of how do you differentiate between mainstream corporate communication tactics and marketing strategies? How do you compete with them? Because for example, in some cases, there's really a push by some corporations pushing a certain kind of public health behavior and then organizations like UNICEF and WHO trying to push back against that. Could you speak to that type of ecosystem a bit and how you have experienced working in an environment where there are mixed messages from different actors?
Deepak: Exactly. You know, overall, I would say the communication para bola remains the same. You know, it's about connecting with people. It's about core messages that need to be delivered. It's about making sure that the people have understood the messages that you're trying to give them. It's about, you know, taking their feedback, and it's about enabling them to bring about change. Now, the basic marked difference between the two, I would say, are the brass tags. In the field in which we work, our results are about empowerment, about bringing in the equity and equality issues, addressing lifestyle issues, such as health, such as education, such as overall development, life skills, and so on. Whereas in the corporate sector, I think they are driven by the profit point of view. A classic example I'll give you, and I think in many countries I have faced that, and particularly in Indonesia. Look, we are promoting breastfeeding, exclusive and complimentary breastfeeding. At the same time, there are these big corporations promoting formula milk, and then they come up with their communication content, which is very attractive, which is actually showing a very healthy child after consuming formula milk, how it is very important for your child to have this milk - you know, so both the campaigns are countering each other. You know, we are sending messages to the communities. We are trying to convince them, we are trying to work along with them that how important it is for the child to be with the mother and take the breastfeed - and then you get the messages through television, radio, and through the marketing campaigns that: no, no, this formula milk that we bring to you, and we'll give you some free gifts along with it, and how it is important for your child, and so on and so forth. So therefore, I think it's important to understand that we have tough competitors, sitting in the corporations who are promoting something that is important to them from the profit point of view, but which is absolutely counterproductive from the point of view of child's health. One has faced these situations more often than not, and I think we have been able to, by and by, address those through the communities.
Safa: Speaking of addressing those through the community, you've worked in many different projects, many different countries, both in your home country of India and also in many other countries. And could you speak to us a bit about the difference between maybe working on a program in your home country versus working in a new international setting as an international staff member and what your experiences have been in terms of establishing relationships with communities, learning about the different social determinants of health in different contexts? What has that difference been like for you?
Deepak: I think the second part of your question actually has answered the first part. (laughs) You know, you said it all. Because you see, in the international setting, that is a country away from your own domiciled - it is always more challenging. And in fact, you know, the learning curve goes up, you're always on the toes, every day on a 24/7 basis, you are craving to learn more. Whereas in your own country somewhere, somewhere, you know, a sort of comfort factor sets in. You know, being a national in my own country, having, you know, lived here or studied here and, you know, sort of known the communities a little better. Yes, the things are a little easier. Whereas, you know, in another country, you start from scratch. But I think when you are in another country, in another socio cultural setting, you're always learning more and more. Although I must admit, because I have, particularly myself, have worked in the developing countries mostly - and by and large, if you look at these socio economic indicators, they are similar. With some varying degree of differences. But the cultural settings are, of course, very, very different. In some settings, perhaps the local elected leaders, those are more powerful in terms of serving as catalytic change agents. So I think those cultural issues are always more challenging.
Safa: Yes, when it comes to designing campaigns to change people's behavior, what do you think can help balance or address the type of different power dynamics that exist - in terms of not only power dynamics between perhaps a UN agency and a local community, but also within a community since there are many different kinds of identities and subgroups within a community as well.
Deepak: The entire, the entire purpose of communication for development in social and behavior change communication is to bring people on board. It is about learning about them and engaging with them to bring about positive changes in their lives. You know, through empowerment, through knowledge resources, through information that they may not be having at that point in time, to connect them with the services which are available, so on and so forth. And I think they are my end clients, you know, from the perspective of studying the marketing model, they are the end clients. Now I need to understand about them as much as possible, before actually we design any intervention. So I think it's important that right from the stage one of research, you know, which we call risk factor analysis, I think we adopt the participatory method in which equity is absolutely maintained at all stages of participation - in terms of gender, in terms of the village head, or the poorest of the lot in the community. So from every perspective, I think it has to be completely, totally participatory. I mean, it could be of course a smaller sample - it may not be 100 out of 100 people, but out of those 10, or 15, that you have picked, it's a fair representation of the people from the community. So I think participatory method is all about bottom up design modelling. It not only addresses the concerns, in a bigger way, of issues such as racism, if there is any in the community, or, you know, there could be religious racism, so on and so forth. So I think those issues need to be addressed at the same time - even while I'm talking about, you know, hand hygiene or family planning, sexual reproductive health or adolescent lifestyles issues - participatory methods, I think, is not a research method, I think it's a design model. And I think once you start with that participatory approach, the entire program design falls in place. Whether it is planning cycles, whether it is monitoring of your program, whether it is message development - even selection of tools, and communication channels that we want to pick. Because it's very easy for the communication managers to sit and design and think that this is the most innovative, this is the most technically savvy, but possibly you don't even realize that that's not something that this particular community actually accesses on a regular basis. So I think there are umpteen number of issues, which are automatically addressed, once we take the route of a participatory model, you know, for our communication design elements. In terms of power dynamics, I think it's nothing but the equity that really, really governs the participatory approach, one has to really, really work around, you know, if there are village heads or there are district heads involved, the women leaders, the household members, and you know, representatives from the community, right from the stage one, till we evaluate our communication program. I think it's all pervasive, this participatory method is an all pervasive method in the communication for development.
Safa: Have there been instances or examples where perhaps community members have said actually, no, we don't agree with this, or we have our own reasons for doing it in this way - have there been these kind of conversations that you've been a part of?
Deepak: Yes, certainly, Safa, many a times, many a times because it is about bringing them on the same page. It's about bringing them on board, and we are not coercing them with a behavior change - be it any behavior, you know, because I think the very fulcrum of our communication for development approach is not prescriptive. You know, we don't want to prescribe and instruct that this is what is good for you, so therefore, you do that. Yeah, it's about they themselves realizing what works best for them, within their given context. I mean, there are multiple examples, you know, whether it's a diarrhea control program, or even water and sanitation programs, family planning programs. But I must say, I think family planning, that is particularly under sexual and reproductive health, that was one tough area to work around. Because there were disagreements. There are certain religious communities, they think that their religion does not allow them to practice family planning. So I think then, one has to really, really work that much harder, actually, to bring on board their religious and faith leaders, to actually talk to them through the interpersonal communication methods. But you know, there is one mantra, that I think one one has really learned over a period of time - human touch is very important in the entire communication cycle. You know, even if I'm using say, seven, eight or nine tools of communication right from the beginning untill my program finishes, somewhere in between that cycle, a human touch must come in. If I think that I can really be successful in running my C4D program, only through mass media, only through social media, only through you know, the mid media and billboards and posters and so on - well, in some cases, it just might work, but then if I'm really really looking at very good results and ownership by people, at some point in time interpersonal communication must come in, whether it is provided by the health ANMs or the other social cadres at the local level, you know, trained counsellors available - but I think human touch, this is where I really emphasize that somewhere, if we can afford, if our program has that much of a luxury of time and resources, I think interpersonal communication must be woven in into the program. Because I have seen that with faith leaders, you know, especially under sexual reproductive health and family planning program - one on one communication, or one with the group communication, I think it worked, it worked wonders. I mean, no posters, no radio advertisements, no television interaction could ever deliver those results as interpersonal communication. So these are some of the experiences, I would say where participatory models and peoples engagement is the magical mantra for a successful communication for development program.
Safa: You mentioned earlier that sometimes time is a luxury. And sometimes on the podcast, we speak about this tension between immediate change or the need for immediate impact. And the fact that sometimes change takes a very long time, or in some cases, you know, there are advancements, and then there's kind of a reversal. So it's two steps forward, one step back, you've worked on many different issues, including polio eradication campaigns and effort - could you speak to us a bit about that tension between two steps forward, one step back, or that the change that you're trying to work towards taking maybe years or even decades in some cases?
Deepak: Polio eradication is just one example. In India, I think it was an uphill task. It took, it took a lot, it took a lot of energies. I think, you know, what happens, for example, in the polio eradication program, and I think it is just one example, but it happens in many, many, many other programs, you know, be it development or public health - you are going ahead, you have done your, you know, entire strategy and development process, you have gone ahead with the message design, you are all ready now to launch, your program is running. And suddenly there is some misinformation, or there is some kind of a rumour that emerges in a community. And the, I wouldn't say the entire program, but a huge part of the program goes kaput. And suddenly you are just left wondering what's gone wrong. And why is it, you know? And that is where the risk communication comes to play the role - I think are preparedness to handle, our preparedness to handle such rumours or myths or misconceptions - for example, just a little while ago, I gave you an example of faith leaders, I have noticed the local faith leaders and the local elected leaders, even at the village level, local women leaders very, very, very powerful, you know, they are very, very powerful. I think their engagement, when you bring them on board, any misinformation, or any rumour, if you want to address it through these catalytic change agents, they actually serve as the best medicine at that point in time. I think you can revert and you can further go forward in your program, through your magic band of using faith leaders, elected leaders, and the local women leaders, women activist groups, and so on. And I think that works, that really, really works. So yeah, one has faced those kinds of challenges in various, various programs that you know, what has been working in, and I think I would normally look for an interpersonal connection to remedy out from such a situation, and particularly if there are faith leaders, locally elected leaders and women leaders around, I think I would look for collaborations and partnerships with them.
Safa: You mentioned the power of rumours and misinformation and the negative impact it can have. And now of course, we're in the context of the coronavirus pandemic, and globally, so many different agencies, organizations, governments have been scrambling to really put out strategic health communication messages - and in a lot of ways, there's been criticism, there's been mistakes made. And of course, there's been misinformation, there's also been rumours, and a lot of these health agencies have had to fight back against the rumours. Could you speak to us a bit about you know, from your professional perspective, your experiences, how you think globally, these agencies have handled health communication, strategic communication? What have been the ethical issues and the problems that have been most concerning for you, from your perspective?
Deepak: I would up front say that, I think the behavior change communication sector should have performed a little better, right from the beginning, in terms of the messaging, in terms of the media we are using. I think it was messed up, right in the very beginning, unfortunately so. You know, there are multiple aspects that we need to understand here. One, this is definitely a new virus. So I think we all need to understand that - including the health agencies, the departments in each country, you know, Department of Infectious Diseases, or Departments of Epidemiology. Till now, if you notice, I think every other day, there is a new research that comes up, we are still learning about this virus. So I think that one thing we need to really keep as a common denominator. However, having said that, I think the first mistake that was done was that there was a bit of a delay in declaring it as a pandemic, you know, I think, quite a lot of time was lost in that. And I think many countries lost out some valuable time in the beginning of the year. So the confusion between the political communication and the strategic health communication still continues. I mean, there are many countries where there are political motives, the leadership, the political leadership of a country is conveying one thing, whereas the science says something else. And I think just a little while ago, we were talking about how powerful some faith leaders and local political leaders can be - I mean, that deviates, that deviates from the line of scientific communication. So that's the second aspect we need to keep in mind. Third aspect, I think with the current pandemic, you know, social media is both a boon and a curse. It really depends on how we use it. The major part of misinformation, I think, which has really come by, all through this period of COVID-19, is thanks through social media. I think there are people who have found new platforms to communicate, and they really like to share information, whether it is verified or not, they go around sharing it with you know, 10, 20, 100, thousands, and many, many thousands. And I think suddenly, by the time you realize that this was fake information that came to you, it has actually reached, I don't know how many millions. And then to counter that, you know? So I think that preparedness is the key. I think the key to success is even now, I think it's not over, we're still very much in the thick of the pandemic - I think how quick, without wasting time, how quick are we in countering fake information? Fake, quote unquote - I mean, because somebody has shared it, possibly thinking that it is correct information, but that's fake. I mean, that's scientifically not verified. That's not accurate information. This is actually all about behavioural issues. There are very specific, four or five indicated behaviors, accelerators, as we call them, and I think if those are conveyed very clearly to the masses, then we have quite a lot done. We have covered one major hurdle in addressing this pandemic. But my problem is that I'm noticing, even those key behaviors /accelerators are not being addressed correctly. You know, for example, just the other day, somewhere on social media, I saw one particular government and their key message was: let's flatten the curve together. Now, what does that mean to a common person? Let's flatten the curve together. I mean, scientifically, maybe because we work in the same field, I could understand what it meant, you know, flatten the curve. But a common person a rickshaw puller, a taxi driver, a local shopkeeper, possibly won't even understand what we want to convey with the flattening the curve, and that together, I mean, what is it that he or she could do? And social distancing - I mean, that word should not have been used right at the beginning - what we are talking about is physical distancing. But nonetheless, the term was used first time and then it caught on and I think that become a term which is social distancing. So I think there are very specific behavioral indicated actions that need to be conveyed. Say for example risk perception theory or trust determination theory, you know, straight out of the textbooks. In these circumstances, even if we use instructional communication, or what we say is prescriptive communication, it will work - because people are in panic. People definitely want to save their lives and the lives of their loved ones. We need to ensure that when you are giving a message out, people trust you, people really, really trust what you are saying and the behaviors that you are suggesting, are actionable - 1,2,3,4 - actionable behaviors, And they can see the outcomes. You can give examples in your communication package that this is how it works. And look at this example, this has worked here. So I think it is as simple as that. And yet I think we haven't done so well in COVID-19 communication. And no wonder, I think we are where we are, you know.
Safa: Yes. You mentioned the use of social media, as you know, one main tool for misinformation to spread. Could you speak to us a bit about your thoughts on social media as a tool - there's so many documentaries and reports about various organizations using social media for negative, undemocratic or unethical purposes - how social media is used to, you know, unconsciously change behavior. So it's doing it in a way where the user or the person who's being targeted doesn't even realize it happening.
Deepak: Thank you Safa, I think, you know, the constant hammering, as it is called, constant hammering, you know, 10 times if you tell a person again and again, and yet again, that this is a fact, this is a fact, this is a fact, I think, by the end of the day, a person - more often than not, starts believing possibly, that's the fact. So I think having said that, having said that, why even talk about individuals or little organizations - I would say major political parties, even the governments in some countries, I think, are really, really misusing social media - a potential tool to convert people, or to bring them on board with their ideology, through social media. So I think that should take us back to the initial part of your question. I still continue to maintain that social media, definitely, I think is a double edged sword. You know, it's a boon for sure, and it can also be a curse. It's our preparedness, how we actually handle social media. And this is relatively a new media, it is relatively, perhaps, maybe little over a decade that I think it has come into being, it can be so powerful. Let me tell you that, especially when we deal with young people, you know, look at the demographics, look at the world's population, and especially in countries like India, or most countries in South Asia, I see a huge percentage of people are either adolescents or young. And most of them are with smartphones, or access to internet, using computers or laptops. You know, they have access to social media. It depends really, you know, how strategic you are in using social media and how prepared you are in countering, if there is any, a bad campaign or a campaign that really counters your positive messaging. So one has to be really prepared, one has to be very strategic in using it.
Safa: Hmm, speaking of, you know, new mediums, not necessarily new, but different mediums, you've also be quite active in the edutainment genre in terms of using documentaries or videos to promote healthy behavior. Could you speak to us a bit about that genre and the impact? Because nowadays, we're kind of in a time where if someone has a question or wants to learn more about an issue, they tend to go to Netflix, watch a documentary about it, or to you know, watch a video rather than read a book or read a report?
Deepak: Absolutely, yes. And it's nothing really very new, I must say that Safa - because I think way back in the decade of 80s, and then in the early 90s, I think there were many, many countries - Nigeria, and some other country examples, you know, even Ethiopia, and of course, within South Asia, even India, Bangladesh - I think they used TV serials, they used MTV videos, they used pop singing, rock shows to convey a social message. And I think, especially as I said, a little while back - with young people, I think if we use these mediums, and we are packaging our message with the entertainment, whether it's music, or it's drama, family drama, or you know, cinema as a core message that you want to give, for example, about menstrual hygiene. There was one feature film made in Bombay a couple of years ago on sanitary pads. And I think that film really, really brought about a huge change in the region. I think the whole idea of promoting menstrual hygiene, even the government started looking at the menstrual hygiene issue very seriously. At the school level, I think there were lots of NGOs who started participating after that in providing girls the pads and so on. The films' title was The Pad Man. So, this is just one example. Edutainment, I think is one strategy that is always, always very, very viable and extremely, extremely acceptable, even culturally in the local context. However, in some cases, let's switch gears and come to COVID-19 now. In certain situations, I think much more serious communication, where I think entertainment, you may not have, again, the luxury of developing a message and then padding it up with the entertainment, you may not have that luxury available. You just immediately need to send the communication to the people, however prescriptive it may sound. So I think situations vary, you know, situations really, under the regular public health programs, under regular developmental issues, yes, I think the edutainment strategy works. But I think in certain pandemics or disasters or emergencies, of course, you know, you need different tools to work around to address those issues.
Safa: Shifting a bit now to your experiences just working in UN agencies, working in different organizations, both as a national staff member, as an international staff member, as a consultant - could you speak to us a bit about the work culture you've seen, or maybe some of the hierarchies you've observed, or the power dynamics you've observed between different actors in the organization? What have been your observations or your thoughts about maybe some of the ethical issues that exists in the work culture of organizations in this sector?
Deepak: If I really reflect on my last nearly three decades, in various capacities, in various countries, somewhere it is donor driven for sure. I have to confess that. The countries who are the primary donors to any agency - we tend to get donor driven, which is unfortunate. But by and large, I still observe, I think there is a programming freedom. So a donor will not be able to interfere too much with your regular programming. For example, I'll give you a very small example. At a certain point in time, the sexuality education to young people and abortion became a huge issue. It became such a huge issue. And this was I think, the time when I was still with the India country program. And suddenly, we had to switch gears - because the donor absolutely wanted to withdraw the entire program money, which of course, I found it at that point in time extremely, extremely painful. Why do we have to readjust our programs because the donor feels this way? And their ideoology of course, is driven by politics and so on. I think our agencies do suffer a bit of donor driven sort of nature of our program, which I think is part of the game, I think, which is part of the game, unfortunately.
Safa: You mentioned how you've been doing this work for nearly three decades now. And over the years, there have been new crisis’, new issues, new problems - what would you say continues to be important to rethink at a broader, general sectoral level, so that whatever goals that particular programs have are reached in a more meaningful way?
Deepak: I think it's time to really, really rethink and redesign the approaches in the development sector, because, you know, we've been talking about the participatory method - but are we actually participatory when it comes to say, for example, global, or even at the national level? I think, number one would be, we need to absolutely, absolutely keep aside the prescriptive approach in our development -you know, we prescribe development - which I think is not a good idea. Development is about engaging with people, helping them themselves to redefine development, what does development mean to them? For example, even the education models, if we see the theory of diffusion by Everett Rogers, this very great social scientist, I think the entire concept of imposing or rather bringing what a Western culture says or feels, and bringing it on to the south, or what we say is the developing world, I think the time is not for that now, I think it's over. We need to involve people, we need to involve communities in defining development. That's one. I think that's very, very important. Any service that we are talking about as a part of development, I think there are three key words we need to work around - accessibility, quality and affordability - with equity. That I think is the underlying. For example, right now, if I can contextualize it, say for example, vaccines. Now if the vaccines come out by the year end or the next year for the COVID-19, my major concern would be is the dissemination of that vaccine done with equity? Is the last person in the queue getting that vaccine? Those are the issues really, you know, the whole approach of development needs to be redefined. As I said, again, I will repeat it, you know, strict adherence to the participatory, bottom up design models, I think that's where the word development will get redefined. Because if is a bottom up design model, where communities and individuals are participating in redefining development - people's ownership, I think that's another key factor, people must own the change that we are talking about. It should be people's own. I mean, it should not be just prescribed change that this is how we feel, and I think it will be good for you, therefore, please change. No, I think it should be people's own change, the ownership is not complete unless the community is also engaged in monitoring of any program - monitoring their own progress made, they must also participate and learn that this is where the change has not happened and these are the reasons why the change is not happening. Monitoring ownership by the community, that needs to be people- centric. Last but not least, as a communication scholar, I must also say that I think communication tools need to be contextual - all through our conversation we have spoken about it. Fancy communication tools may look good as innovations, but I think they need to be contextualized, they need to be actually liked by and accessed by the people with whom we are working. So I think these couple of things, whose time has come, you know, rethinking development - the time has come for that. And some of these elements I think are integral to that change.
Safa: Yes, absolutely. Thank you for sharing those key elements and your time today.
Deepak: Thank you very much. I enjoyed it thoroughly. And I really look forward to more such debates and most such discussions to set the agenda rolling, especially, you know, with the young people in the community. And I think if we are able to set the ball rolling, there is a long way I think we will be able to cover. Thank you so much, Safa.
Safa: Thank you, thank you for your time, I really appreciate it. I also want to thank our listeners, thank you for tuning in. We invite you to join in on the conversation. You can do this in a number of ways. Number one, you can send us a short voice message sharing a specific ethical issue that you've navigated in your career. You can visit our website and hit the send us a voice message button for more details on how to do that. Or number two, you can email us a short letter to your younger self, sharing what you wish you had known when you first started working in the sector or tips about some of the things you've learned over the years. You can also keep up to date with our latest episodes and offerings by signing up for our newsletter, listening and subscribing to our podcast on your preferred podcast player and following us on social media. On our website, you can also find a donation link where you can choose either a one time donation or reoccurring monthly donation option to help us cover our production costs. Thank you again for tuning in. I look forward to continuing this conversation with you all next time. Until then, take care
