What doesn't make sense to me is that The Atlantic supposedly became profitable a couple of years ago -- see http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/13/business/media/13atlantic.... -- which, if true, means they didn't actually need to do this!
After a few gimmicks run their course (e.g. using teams and friends of teams from The Atlantic to "digg" stories on HN for you to uptick visits while pages per visit plummet) in about 6 months the entire sales and/or product teams perform brutal "reshuffles".
For those in the vicious swirl, it is common practice to have a nicely fleshed out LinkedIn account at one's immediate disposal.
The sad irony is that it is the print medium and its advertising legacy (much like TV) brings in much larger sums of revenue overall. But the overhead costs overtake it dramatically. These days it feels very much like vinyl: better quality, but the law of diminishing returns is in full swing.
Things change fast.
[This message from the Adverb Defence League]
I subscribed to the Economist through most of the '90s, but did not renew my subscription following a rather blithe editorial saying Bill Clinton should resign.
I still have a measure of respect for them on non-controversial topics—they're very good at explaining technical details in a simple way, for instance—but my faith in their judgment is gone.
That's the reason I almost never read their leaders. I also tried to forgive them for the financial derivatives-special issue they had around 2007 or so, just before the shit started hitting the fan, but they were at least trying to counter-balance that with regular (small) articles in the financial section about the housing boom.
Otherwise their world-news reporting I think it's the best out-there.
In TIME magazine, each page is clearly marked 'advertisement' at the top, and the fonts and styling are typically distinct from normal articles.
With sponsored stories to improve the PR of totalitarian cults, they're going to end up neither.
I recall reading articles in the NYT derived from Quora answers.
While it may in the short-term produce increased traffic, it may become harder to maintain quality, as minimally vetted 3rd party contributions grow in number. It makes one wonder, what that effect that will have longterm?
It's also interesting that users on syndicated sites containing user generated content, will now be able to claim they have "written for the New York Times".
Obligatory xkcd strip.
This applies to some journalistic endeavors as well. In some cases, I seek out the thoughts of those whose facts are unreliable, because their opinions are interesting or novel. But just as often, I seek out long-form, descriptive pieces to learn what reliable people believe is true. I cannot validate every aspect of the outside world, so I trust others to do this. When they are frequently right, like Nate Silver, say, I trust them more. When they lend their brand to more bizarre groups, I trust them less, not because the sponsored link itself changes the truth of the rest of the articles, but because it signals a lack of judgment that might have a common source with many other important and difficult decisions a magazine or newspaper must make.
For instance, when I read the Economist, I feel rather confident in their facts. They have a particular fiscally conservative slant, but in general they have proven to be realistic and relevant. They might not espouse particularly novel solutions, but they lay a solid framework for further thought. As it is, The Atlantic is reasonably trusted. That's almost surely the reason Scientology would like to place a sponsored story there, in addition to, or in lieu of, more popular outlets.
In the coming transformation of journalism, institutions like The Atlantic, or newer upstarts like Svbtle, will have to consider sponsored posts and similar "brand-lending." When they do, they'll have to decide whether they want to be a trusted brand, or an interesting one.