Reference no: EM132225550

Is There an App for Good Parenting?

Do the risks of “screen time” for small children outweigh the potential benefits? That is what this case considers. This activity is important because ethical dilemmas arise every day in business decision making, and managers (especially marketers) must consider all aspects of a situation in order to make the best decisions.

The goal of this exercise is to give you a chance to apply frameworks of ethical decision making to real-world issues related to the spread of technology targeted at infants and toddlers.

Read the case below and answer the questions that follow.

If you've gone to a mall or family restaurant recently, it's likely that you have seen children playing games or watching videos on tablets. Whereas it used to be difficult to get children to behave in stores or at restaurants, parents are finding that a tablet or smartphone can be an effective babysitter. Manufacturers have picked up on this trend and offer several tablets designed specifically for kids: Samsung has the Galaxy Tab 3 Kids Edition, LeapFrog sells the LeapPad3 PowerLearning Tablet, nabi provides the nabi 2, and Amazon has the Fire Kids Edition, to name just a few.

Producing and selling technology for kids has proven to be a profitable business. But when is it too much technology? Both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Mayo Clinic urge parents to not allow children younger than two years of age to interact with any device with a screen (television, computer, tablet), out of concern that it will have negative effects on children's brain development, including possible language delays and damage to their social, emotional, and cognitive skills.1 Furthermore, research has shown that increased “screen time” (defined as the number of hours children spend interacting with any device with an electronic screen) leads to increased risks of obesity, irregular sleep, behavioral problems, and impaired academic performance.

Despite such warnings, companies continue to produce technology products geared toward younger and younger children.2 One of the latest is Fisher-Price's Newborn-to-Toddler Apptivity Seat3-essentially a small chair for newborns, with a bar that hangs an iPad a few inches from the child's face. As might be expected, the introduction prompted a massive outcry from child advocacy groups such as the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood (CCFC), which filed complaints with the Federal Trade Commission about claims Fisher-Price has posted on its website asserting that the chair, in concert with a tablet, actually helps babies' brain development.

Fisher-Price's response? It has added a “note to customers” on the product's web page. After suggesting that parents limit their children's screen time, it goes on to state, “we realize this type of technology in infant products isn't for everyone. That's why our Apptivity Seat is just one of more than a dozen baby seats we make, giving parents lots of choices with the options they prefer for their family's lifestyle.”4

The company is not alone in its efforts. With the 2-in-1 iPotty, CTA Digital suggests that parents affix their tablet to their children's potty-training seats. Then the children can play with an app or watch a video while learning how to use the potty—often a challenging task for parents as well as children. Since its introduction, the potty seat has been extremely popular, becoming one of the company's top-selling products.

The offerings also do not stop at products. Mattel (the parent company of Fisher-Price) has developed a suite of iPad Apptivity apps, available for free to parents who buy the seat. The early development content shows high-contrast patterns, so babies' young eyes can follow them, and features soothing sounds of nature. For slightly older children, the app advances to introduce numbers and letters. Each visual presentation times out after 10 to 12 minutes.

On an even more advanced level, Netflix has expanded its line of self-produced content, beyond fan favorites such as Arrested Development or Orange Is the New Black, to include series for children.6 By appealing to young consumers, Netflix hopes to increase the loyalty of the entire household, reasoning that parents are unlikely to cancel their subscription if Netflix is the only place kids can get the latest episodes of some of their favorite shows.

For parents, innovative products for children can be a lifesaver: They keep kids entertained, help with potty training, and offer a convenient distraction. Moreover, many parents today already rely heavily on tablets and other screens for their own purposes, making it difficult for them to avoid screen time for their children. In this sense, companies are merely providing the products and services that parents, and their children, want.

Suppose that a fictitious toy company knowingly manufactured educational toys made from dangerous materials, while at the same time donating large sums to a nonprofit organization researching educational techniques. Which of the following is a correct statement?

The firm is behaving unethically but is socially responsible.

The firm is behaving ethically and is socially responsible.

A firm behaving unethically cannot be socially responsible.

A socially responsible firm cannot behave unethically.

The firm is behaving ethically but is not socially responsible.

According to the case, Fisher-Price responded to criticism of the Apptivity Seat by posting a note to parents on the product website. Fisher-Price could also have decided to modify the product to limit screen time, to withdraw the product from the market, or to do nothing at all. During which step of the Ethical Decision Making Framework would Fisher-Price have generated and considered these (and other) options?

brainstorm and evaluate alternatives

identify issues

gather information

choose a course of action

identify stakeholders

Parents, children, and investors in Fisher-Price were among the groups whose interests were relevant to a decision about the future of the Apptivity Seat. Groups like these, who have an interest in the outcome of a business decision, are called

stakeholders.

stockholders.

shareholders.

creditors.

debtors.

Let’s say that Fisher-Price chooses to engage in conscious marketing in a future iteration of the Apptivity seat. As a first step to that end, it considers all of the individuals and groups involved to ensure that no decisions it makes inflicts harm or damage upon them. Which principle of conscious marketing does this action represent?

consideration of stakeholders and their interdependence

recognition of marketing’s greater purpose

the presence of conscious leadership, creating a corporate culture

the understanding that decisions are ethically based

staying dedicated to the notion that the choices a firm makes reflect its corporate culture