Hacker News Reader

Comment by Nextgrid | Hacker News Reader

The problem is that opening up the market to "Aunt Mae" will also open up the market to malicious players.

The financial barrier of entry of TV & print advertising is a very effective filter against scams. I have yet to see scam ads for fake tech support or "win an iPhone by filling a survey" or some "free" trial which uses unreadable fine print to sign you up for something very expensive, but those are commonplace online.

View on HN

So the answer to preventing scam ads is only allowing the richest companies have a chance to advertise?

Surely there’s a better way.

Well, higher prices not only allow for people to be paid decent money to review the ads manually but are also a bigger risk for any scam operation as not only is it more difficult to obtain & move that amount fraudulently (you're not going to be able to buy a TV ad with a stolen credit card) but they also have much more to lose should their entire operation be discovered (presumably, a TV network discovering a fraudulent attempt will report it to the relevant authorities and will not just give the money back).

I worked at a local TV station a while back, and I programmed the commercials. You would be surprised at how little those slots go for. Off prime time, a 15 or 30 second add spot might sell for a couple dollars. At night they’re only a few cents. It was a mid-sized metropolitan area, so I don’t think this would be so out of the ordinary.

To this day, I have no idea how any TV stations are financially solvent.

NordVPN's ads have made it onto TV, and a lot of TV ads nowadays are for gambling. Nevertheless it certainly is easier to regulate advertising if it isn't dynamic.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com