I logged into Starbucks' wifi this morning and was presented with the below screen. I find it fascinating that Starbucks has an ad for "full behind-the-paywall access. Free." This strikes me as very much an industry term that is neither: - well known - consumer friendly, or - flattering for the content providers (WSJ, ESPN, USA Today, NY Times)
Agree? Disagree?
In March, I wrote about Apple's full page advertisement in the New York Times touting the iPhone as a weekend tool: "Getting the most out of your weekend, one app at a time."
In yesterday's New York Times, they ran a continuation of the ongoing campaign - but with a slight twist: promote the branded apps (I wrote a post this week about seven of the best branded iPhone apps):
"It's pretty amazing who's on the iPhone these days. From CNN to Nike, Starbucks to FedEx, there are over 100,000 apps for just about anything. Only on the iPhone and the nation's fastest 3G network." It is a poor photo, but you can see that each of the applications comes from a very recognizable name: Nike, Starbucks, eBay, CNN, Gap, ESPN, Facebook, Target, Bank of America, Whole Foods, CNN, USA Today, Avis, eTrade, Pizza Hut and Barnes & Nobles.
Also of note, other than CNN's $1.99 app, all of these applications are free. In many of Apple's advertisements - and certainly in their app recommendations - they tend to promote paid applications... but here, the brand names are intended to sell hardware and reputation rather than micro-purchases.
