WikiFur talk:Promotion

If we were trying to be a porn site, we could do a spoof of the Wikipedia ads with the words "the world has more than two genders". Alas, we're not, but I still think it's a neat idea. :-) --GreenReaper^(talk) 07:45, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)

more ad ideas

What about this: "WikiFur: Life, liberty, and the fursuit of happiness." Or "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of furryness."

"Like you've got anything else to do. WikiFur." - showing a furry at a computer, with heaps of papers all around. -- Siege 03:03, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)

"WikiFur: Like you've got anything better to do", with a bored fur tossing away a copy of Skunk. ;-) --GreenReaper^(talk) 04:39, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Maybe in US-specific promotions . . . it's not as well-known a saying elsewhere. --GreenReaper^(talk) 04:39, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)

ads in conbooks

What are the chances of Wikifur advertising in conbook(s) this year? I see the deadline for FWA conbook is 4 days away ("December 15th, 2006.") .. but I'm guessing the conbooks with highest con attendance would have priority? Which would be Anthrocon and Midwest FurFest.. since Further Confusion conbook deadline has passed. BTW, I hope to send a money order to WikiFur --EarthFurst 00:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we can manage $30 for half a page, particularly as I paid the same for Megaplex 2006's ad. I'll see about updating the advert and sending it off to them. As for FC, I'm thinking it might be a good idea to send them the leftover leaflets from Anthrocon, if they're willing to do conbag stuffing. We have about 2000-2200 left. GreenReaper^(talk) 03:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we can ask for them to put them in for free . that happens alot. - cchristian

I'd rather pay them to have some assurance that they'd actually do it rather than send them 2000 flyers and have them forget. :-) GreenReaper^(talk) 04:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I've submitted the design for FWA's conbook advert, payment has been made, and confirmation that is is going in has been provided by Spiral Raven. I decided to note 5,000 articles rather than 6,000, as it was what I was sure of at the time, and it seemed a better number (after all, more than 5,000 could easily be 8,000 or so, while more than 6,000 is not likely to be more than 7,000). *grin* --GreenReaper^(talk) 22:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)