2/6: Down the rabbit hole – where 4 years of research led me

In my last post, I shared how reading Alvin Toffler’s “Future Shock” during lockdown sent me on an unexpected journey. What started as curiosity about information overload became a five-year deep dive into neuroscience, psychology, and the uncomfortable truth about how we measure success in marketing.

The deeper I went, the more disturbing the picture became.

The scale we’ve created

Let me share some numbers that really got me thinking. We (humans) now create 402 million terabytes of data every single day. To put that in perspective, 90% of all the world’s data was generated in just the last two years. The average person encounters between 4,000-10,000 brand messages daily – up from fewer than 500 in the 1970s when Toffler wrote his warning.

But here’s what really shook me: This isn’t accidental. It’s the inevitable result of how we define and measure success.

The metrics that drive everything

Our entire industry runs on engagement metrics – clicks, likes, shares, time spent, pages viewed. These have become the universal language of marketing success. Quarterly reports celebrate increased engagement. Bonuses are tied to engagement. Careers are built on engagement.

But what does “engagement” actually measure? Not value created. Not problems solved. Not lives improved. Just… attention captured.

What these metrics actually do to our brains

The neuroscience research was revelatory. When our brains are bombarded with content optimised for these metrics, they don’t just get tired – they fundamentally change how they function. Studies show that heavy social media users (3+ hours daily) have 2.7 times higher rates of depression. Each additional hour of social media use correlates with a 9% increase in depression risk.

Content designed to maximise our current success metrics reduces sustained attention capacity by up to 23%. We’re not just distracted – we’re being rewired. The constant task-switching that engagement-optimised content encourages mirrors the symptoms of clinical attention disorders.

The human cost of “success”

The statistics paint a devastating picture:

• 301 million people globally suffer from anxiety disorders
• Teen depression rates have risen dramatically since 2010, tracking perfectly with social media adoption
• 73% of people feel “overwhelmed by the number of crises” in the world
• Mental health disorders now cost the global economy $2.5 trillion annually

And here’s the kicker: Fear of “information wars” had the biggest increase among existential societal fears in 2024. People aren’t just overwhelmed – they’re losing trust in information itself.

The system that rewards the wrong things

About three years into my research, I had a simple thought: the problem isn’t that marketers are trying to harm people – it’s that our measurement systems actively reward behaviours that cause harm.

Think about it: Every KPI dashboard, every performance review, every agency pitch deck focuses on the same metrics. More engagement. More reach. More frequency. More, more, more.

But nowhere in these dashboards do we measure:

• Cognitive load imposed on audiences
• Mental well-being impact
• Quality of attention vs quantity
• Long-term trust erosion
• Contribution to information overload

The perverse incentive problem

The research revealed something troubling: Our current success metrics create a system where human distress becomes profitable. The more anxious, lonely, or dissatisfied people become, the more they engage with content, and the better our metrics look.

We’ve built a machine that mistakes addiction for loyalty, anxiety for engagement, and cognitive overload for success.

But people are waking up

The research also revealed a growing awareness. 82% of consumers now say they prefer marketing that uses their data responsibly. 89% would be more likely to buy from businesses that actively protect their well-being. Ad blocker usage has increased by 280% since 2015.

People aren’t just tired of the noise. They’re actively rejecting our definition of “engagement.”

A question that changes things

As I compiled research from psychology, neuroscience, marketing effectiveness studies, and consumer behaviour analysis, one question kept coming back to me: What if our success metrics are actually measuring our failure?

What if every “improvement” in engagement is actually a step backward for both brands and the humans they’re trying to reach?

That question led me to examine the paradox at the heart of modern marketing – where the metrics tell us we’re winning while the evidence shows we’re losing. Where we optimise for numbers that correlate with harm rather than health.

But here’s what surprised me most: The very research that documents the problem also points toward a solution. A way to measure what actually matters. Success metrics that align commercial performance with human well-being.

In the next article, I’ll share what I discovered about this Creative Dividend Paradox – and why our current metrics might be costing us far more than we realise.

Questions for discussion:

• What metrics does your organisation prioritise, and what behaviours do they incentivise?
• Have you ever questioned whether “engagement” is the right measure of success?
• What would change if we measured contribution to well-being alongside commercial ROI?

The research is clear. Our metrics are broken. But what if we could fix them?

More to come.

This article draws on research from over 50 sources including System1’s Creative Dividend report, Edelman’s Trust Barometer, behavioural psychology studies, and neuroscience research on cognitive load. Full citations will be available in my upcoming research paper, and following white paper.