Ouijia, while not the worst movie in the world, is far from being the best: it sheepishly admits to an 8% rating on Rotten Tomatoes and 4.5 stars out of 10 on IMDB. I mean, the movie’s based on a faux-supernatural board game. Stupid, right? WRONG. Ouija serves as an excellent example of a film that’s highly attuned both to itself and to its audience.

First of all, the people behind this film knew exactly what kind of movie they were making: a fun, dumb horror film. For proof, look no further than one of its two taglines, “Some call it a spirit board. It has existed for centuries. It is used to communicate with the other side.” It doesn’t get more on the nose than that.

With the demographic for this type of film fairly well-defined (young with cash to spend), the marketers behind Ouija threw themselves into the world of social media, leveraging the Halloween season and self-awareness to make a splash on Twitter and Facebook.

But Ouija’s true genius lay in aligning with Snapchat for the latter’s first ever ad. While walking home from the grocery store one day, I pulled out my phone to check my notifications* and saw I had gotten a Snapchat from my friend Molly. Since I was already in the app, I went to its home page to check out other peoples’ stories.

There it was. Snapchat’s first ever ad. And it was for Ouija.

Like most other Millennials, I have a special respect for people who don’t take themselves too seriously, so I opted to watch the quick trailer. Did I end up seeing the movie? In truth, no. But every marketing choice Ouija made fostered my goodwill for the brand, which is still incredibly valuable from a long-term perspective.

More incredibly, I chose to watch this ad for nothing in return because it was there. So much of what we do on our smartphones is motivated by little more than “I have a free moment, two hands, a phone, and the undeniable urge to troll.” Though it may not be the most prestigious of declarations, Ouija’s alliance with Snapchat marks the beginning of the end of interruptive advertising. And I for one am glad because…

…it’s just lazy.

*Or avoid eye contact with every human being I have passed. You make the call.

Were I to describe the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge in a single word, I would choose “inescapable.” For several weeks this past summer, you couldn’t hit Facebook without scrolling through video after video of your friends raising awareness for ALS (and making use of Facebook’s relatively new video-friendly platform to boot).

There are successful social media strategies and then there’s going viral. The ALS Ice Bucket Challenge took the interwebs by storm because it flawlessly blended narcissistic millennial tendencies and the pretext of difficulty by making it socially acceptable (lauded, even) to strip down and douse yourself with freezing water. Enter the most recent attempt to repeat this roaring success: #FeelingNuts, a campaign that calls men to photograph themselves grabbing…themselves and using the hashtag to raise awareness for testicular cancer. However, one way that the #FeelingNuts phenomenon differs from the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge in that it doesn’t capture that same feeling of challenging yourself – all that’s required is an internet connection and pair of testicles.

Which leads to the true reason #FeelingNuts is unlikely to dominate the social media landscape: it excludes women. And that, my friend, is a catastrophic mistake.

According to Pew Research Center, the average proportion of women who used social media sites between May 2008 and May 2013 was 8 percentage points higher than men. Moreover, among internet users (and golly, who isn’t one?), 72% of women engage with Facebook, in comparison to 62% of women.

By itself, this data isn’t particularly convincing – the margins are relatively small, even if they are statistically significant. But things start to get really interesting when you factor in gendered differences in social awareness and practice.

First, women tend to cultivate their sense of self by taking into account the influence of others around them (also known as an “interdependent construal of self”), indicating that women’s identities to some extent depend on how we relate to others.* The phrase “To some extent” is critical because everyone, men and women alike, fall on a spectrum of interdependence. But again, men and women diverge. Whereas women are more relationally oriented, men place a greater emphasis on group memberships and large collectives, finding themselves through greater communities (sports teams, clubs, etc.) rather than person-to-person.** Finally, when compared with women, men prefer discussing less personal topics, like sports and politics, to relationships.***

At this point, you would probably chew your own arm off if it meant I would stop citing (fascinating) psychological studies, so let’s bring it home: I hypothesize that #FeelingNuts won’t remotely approach the level of success the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge enjoyed because it excludes women, a population whose identity hinges on social interaction, who transcend group barriers, and don’t actively dislike discussing themselves.

What do you think – do you agree?

*Aron, Aron, & Smollan, 1992; Brewer & Gardner, 1996; Markus & Kitayama, 1991
**Baumeister & Sommer, 1997
***Aries & Johnson, 1983