Screens vs PR: Who's right?

In the United States, people spend almost four hours a day on their smartphones, not including the additional hours spent on laptops, televisions and other screens. In a fascinating talk, psychologist Adam Alter explains why screens tend to decrease human happiness. He says that social media apps today have no "stopping cues" so users keep scrolling and scrolling, creating an addiction to screens. Obviously, anxiety and depression are not new conditions but the exponential growth of social media has increased these conditions in younger people. Hundreds of studies have been done on this topic and there are even documentaries like "The Social Dilemma" that dive deeper into the issue.

While decreased happiness is an important issue, the part of Alter's talk I found most compelling was the opening. Alter discusses a term called "dogfooding," a practice where business executives use their own company's products to show how good or beneficial they can be. This practice is used across industries and started with an executive eating his company's dog food, but the same can't be seen in the tech industry. Apple founder Steve Jobs refused to let his kids use the newly created iPad when it launched in 2012, even though it was regarded by Jobs as "magical" and the perfect mix of a phone and computer. In a similar fashion, a boarding school in California keeps screens out of student's hands until they reach the eighth grade. Ironically, some of the richest tech executives in Silicon Valley send their children to this school. Actions like these beg the question, are screens really the best, or is it all public relations and marketing?

Tech companies around the world have some of the biggest marketing campaigns and a few of the most well-known brands of all time. Apple alone may be the most recognizable brand on the planet but its founder doesn't allow his children to use the product? Interesting. Apple constantly uses words like "magical" and "creativity" to describe their products but maybe the designers don't truly feel this way. They use these words to captivate a global audience, sell products and create a trillion-dollar brand knowing their devices are contributing to rising levels of depression and unhappiness in users. If the people smart enough to design technology are also smart enough to keep it from their kids, shouldn't the rest of the world follow suit? It's likely in our best interest to reduce screen time but marketing and public relations have become increasingly powerful over the last few decades. Companies like Apple have the ability to put messages and thoughts directly into consumers' heads, messages completely different from marketer's own thoughts on the products.

Contradictions like these in tech marketing are also why the public relations industry gets a bad rap. In a field where advancements can actually hurt the consumer base, honesty is of the utmost importance. Public relations practitioners at large tech companies must be honest and portray their products in an appropriate way. If executives are unwilling to give the products to their own children, similar warnings should be applied to commercials and individual products. Companies should also be more clear about the dangers of their products. I understand that a large portion of the issue comes from individual apps and third-party corporations like Facebook, but the devices that allow the apps to function contribute significantly. Marketing and PR in tech will only continue to grow, but for the health of users, changes must be made.

I'd love to hear your thoughts and comments below! Also, the full talk by Adam Alter:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLOGi5-fAu8bG2E30Xhua1cudewgGKzQx1&v=0K5OO2ybueM