We can put our  minds to it as a community we can achieve anything ! I'm in  lets see who follows ....

I think an advertisement in maybe a few smaller technology-related papers could be more effective, since "those kind of people" are usually more interested in exploring/trying out new stuff. Also there might be better things to spend money on than advertising right now, trying to make more ways that people can actually use the bitcoin for. Maybe ads in a business-related paper ?

You see, we have no business professionals to make this stuff. WE HAVE TO ATTRACT THEM FIRST.

The people here are, frankly, idiots when it comes to starting a business. They are good at technical stuff but are terrible when it comes to anything requiring sound delegation, marketing and financing.

These things are inherently profitable. We don't have to throw money at them. What we need to do is attract innovators and entrepreneurs than can make these things.

Atlas I think it would be baller to put an ad on the front page of WSJ. However, I also agree with the other poster that btc doesn't need publicity right now - it needs dedicated enthusiasts to build more efficient businesses and services around it. We need easy, secure wallets. We need easy, secure exchanges. We need a client that doesn't have to download half a gig of transaction history before it can work. We need intuitive online banks and smartphone payment apps. These things take time, and I know people are working on them.

SO- what would perhaps be better is to shelve your WSJ ad until sometime in the future when the anti-free-market forces have started publicly beating down upon Bitcoin. THEN, we should pool some big money, make a kick-ass "Atlas is Shrugging" type advertisement and slap that on the paper. It's something for the future, not for now.

Great idea, of course

The casino and predictions market I'll give you. The clients I won't. Making short-term alternative client development profitable by offering a bounty would be incredibly more useful for the BTC project than a WSJ ad which will attract some interest, but not a ton. Hell, the project is already getting plenty of press hits. You aren't going to attract some amazing venture capitalists with an ad in the WSJ. You will however, make it ton easier for the average person to use BTC, thus opening up market opportunities for those same VCs , if you have easy to use and secure clients that aren't a nightmare for a non-technical user to understand.

The problem is anyone with sense wouldn't bother putting effort into going after such a small opportunity.

Bitcoin should initially focus on things it is vastly superior to for all people, not just those who ideologically want it to succeed.

Attracting the common folk isn't what's needed. And yes, that is who reads the WSJ. Direct contact/networking to people who would be interested in bitcoin businesses is what is needed. If we get even more people trying to come in and buy coins with credit cards and paypal then we'll just have a lot of people who have bad experiences due to the rough client and such.

So, if we're going to market, market to high tech VCs and entrepreneurs. That is bitcoin's best bet IMO.

I agree with the sentiment of the majority of this threads responses. Let me explain why.

Here are some thoughts on bitcoins biggest challenges.
First, lets take George. His current goal in life is to acquire a new widget series 2 (tm). The series 2 widget is MUCH faster than his old series 1 widget, and he has to have one NOW!
George goes to an online widget shop. Let's now look at 2 of his options:
1. pay with BTC
2. pay with paypal

Now, we all agree, that paying for a widget is a new, secondary problem to acquiring the widget. So he first has to 'solve' this problem before he can solve his greater problem, acquiring the widget. OK, lets look at the new secondary problems from the pov of bitcoin vs paypal.
1. installing the client - paypal has the edge here, unless you get George to sign up for a bitcoin wallet service. Even then, paypal wins out over any currently competing BTC wallet service.
2. acquiring the payment currency. Here paypal destroys bitcoin. I can link my credit card and back account to paypal, and they just draw the funds out as I need. They also handle currency conversion. Acquiring BTC is far more effortful, and can add days to the process.
3. Security - the bitcoin client is not safe for the average windows user. full stop. Don’t argue about advanced users, or advanced operating systems. George is neither one of those, nor has one of those. Paypal wins here, unless we compare it to a mythical btc wallet provider that provides the same amount of security.
4. Usability - clearly bitcoin addresses are less friendly than email accounts. And so on.
5. Merchants - need to be able to easily accept bitcoins and transfer them into the currency of choice. paypal wins again.

For every single one these immediately pressing problems(in that they are standing in between George and his widget) paypal beats bitcoin.

Now, where does BTC stand in all this. Should it give up? No.
BTC has better fundamentals. Its foundation is stronger. But, when it come to the 'minor' problems, it is lacking. None of these minor problems are insurmountable.
So my conclusion is that BTC needs more infrastructure, to make purchasing of widgets as much about the widget, and as little about the process of acquiring/securing/using bitcoins as possible.

Once the infrastructure is there, spend like crazy advertising bitcoin.