Fleeting, But Not Forgotten: Ephemerality as a Means to Increase Recall of Advertising
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ephemeral social media is growing in popularity and brands are increasingly using this method to engage with and advertise to consumers. Yet, little research attention has been paid to how consumers perceive and retain social media content, particularly marketing communications, when they are aware it will disappear. Across five studies we find that when viewers know content is ephemeral, their recall of the content is heightened compared to when they believe the content will be accessible later. We find that this increase in recall due to ephemerality is mediated by processing effort, such that when consumers believe content will disappear, they expend more effort processing the content than if the content is believed to be accessible again. Relevant to advertisers, we find this effect spills over to advertising embedded within ephemeral social media content. Our findings represent a novel means of increasing advertising recall, qualify past findings and theory, and suggest an important new stream of research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it