Sponsorship return on investment

I find it strange that The Baron should find it strange that advertising or sponsorship will allow Reuters to cover a wider range of topics for wider audiences (Paying the piper).

One of the reasons money has worked well for a long time is that it can be used for different things. If someone is helping defray Reuters election coverage costs, it means more of the agency’s budget can go to other news that might not have been covered otherwise. It makes perfect sense for the sponsor/advertiser to want to attach their name to the bigger topic, as they will get more ROI than if they directly sponsored those other, less-visible topics.

Unless we are of the opinion that any advertising on a NYT web page, for example, sullies the NYT’s editorial independence, I see nothing here to offend Reuters principles.

By the way, the nameless horrified “former Reuters editor” quoted in the original story (Reuters’ US presidential election coverage includes sponsored reports) seemed to err in equating this advertising sponsorship with “native content” or thinly disguised, lookalike advertorials that push a product, brand or service. That is clearly not what is going on here. Nameless source got it wrong. ■