Repetitive Financial Ads on Social Media Shape Next-Gen Future Financial Experience: Why Financial Experts Should be Alert?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social media platforms allow financial institutions and advertisers to reach a broad audience and promote their offerings. Consequently, financial ads have become a common feature in social media feeds. Nevertheless, more knowledge is needed regarding the effects of these ads on the Next Gen customer journey (age and culture), who navigates through the complex financial ecosystem trying to make sense of these repetitive financial ads combined with the interference of social media influencers. This qualitative research explores the impact of repetitive financial advertisements on social media and their influence on the general perception of various age groups that compose the Next-Gen. The methodology consisted of an in-depth content analysis of financial influencers on social media and 15 in-depth interviews of participants from different demographic and culture groups who shared their detailed customer journey experiences, including attitudes and perceptions toward repetitive financial ads. The results of this study contribute to providing a better understanding of a) how exposure to repetitive financial ads shapes the customer’s attitude towards financial products and services, b) how variations in perceptions may depend on the customer’s age groups and cultural background, and c) how social media influencers combined with social media platforms selection may impact the customer’s financial literacy and perception on financial products and services. From a managerial perspective, the power of influencers and social media platforms within financial services should be evaluated beyond \n \nrobotic information gathered by big data. Although the qualitative research limits the \naggregate results based on the snowball recruitment and the number of interviewees, it enriches the perspective of putting the human first by listening to the storytelling; it is possible to grasp how the customer engages in sharing, reading, and commenting about financial services and products on various social media platforms, and how the customer is influenced by “financial experts” who promote their expertise on these platforms. Ethical guidance is needed at all levels (e.g., customers, financial institutions, financial advertisers, marketers) to develop and achieve social media efficacy while tailoring educative financial communication strategies toward specific age and cultural groups.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".