Another tactic, for example, is learn what your MBTI is and tailor stories that resonate with your personality.
Pseudoscience yields anecdotes. Science yields empirical results.
* "ok, extrovert-feely, DJ this party and be quick about it!"
* "but the CEO said the quarterly results are due by EOD tomorrow!"
* "are you going to oppose the MBTI? you sure aren't a culture fit are you?"
edit1: formatting
edit2: the point of the above flippant story is that the 'test' marked a person for failure and made their departure a self-fulfilling prophecy.
If you write a letter to the newspaper, you might hope to influence one person, or the general audience of the paper. If you feel so strongly about something that you compose an op-ed, you'll also have to do the work of persuading a feature editor to publish it (although this isn't too hard, if it seems like it fills the news hole). That's a bit less accessible than a letter to the editor. If you're buying full page ads, you're leveraging capital that most people don't have to go outside of regular interpersonal communication channels.
I've priced doing billboards just for funsies --- to make a (snarky) point, not to make money. It's not that expensive! Also: how could it be? Look at some of the terrible billboards out there. There are a series of I-55 billboards advertising a single self-published book of poetry.
Your original statement was "normal humans don't try to communicate directly with each other through the media". I think you're using a pretty idiosyncratic definition of "normal" there. The phenomenon you're labeling abnormal is I think actually pretty common.