Why do some people say B2B has greater potential than B2C?
596136
Maybe because companies depends on suppliers to supply them with items continously.   Companies would like to do business with the same set of suppliers so they can gain a very good relationship with them.   They know how reliable they are. \n\nIf you own a business, and you are always switching suppliers, you don't know what to expect of the company.  Will they always be late, will their shipping fees be very high, will they discontinue the item that you will need in the future?\n\nSo by dealing with a business instead of individial customers, you get a more permanent customer and the business that is doing business with you (hopefully) will get a permanent business partner.\n\nI'm a business student, majoring in Computer Information Systems.
519363
although its anoying, you would most definetly do it yourself if you were trying to attract new customers to your business, at the end of the day most people will only buy if the deal is really good or they are currently after that particular product or service at the time of the call or e-mail, so for 90% of people contacted the answer will probably be no or please call back another day so its probably not ethical for them anyway.
920872
Should be B2C.\n\nBusiness-to-consumer.
290479
Having a strong brand name decreases risk that consumers feel when purchasing a product (take a customer buying a car, he or she want a reliable one that will last for years, if there are two similar cars, same price and stuff, the customer is more likely to purchase the one with a stronger brand name, they feel that there is less risk associated with it),consumer can notice it more easier,\nhope thats what your looking for?
342299
I wouldnt really agree completly with it. The business world is vast and does involve some specific expansions to easy the communication. Its just not the business world that has terminolgies, but rest do. \n\nIts just matter of time, when u start reading business magazine, u will repharse your question to " Why is it so easy to understand business terminology compared to rest".:))
789016
Information is the backbone of all businesses.  If it is not organized in the optimum format, the business will not do well.  If the business objective is to attract new customers, their systems will have to process new customers quickly to seem more efficient than the competition.
730968
Small businesses are having less capital, and similarly they cannot monopolize the market. Since their productions are lower they do not enjoy economies of scale. but there are some advantages, they are small so they can have direct relation with cosumers, they can identify consumer needs better than large businesses. They can use different promotions to compete with the large business, Most of the large businesses were a small business one day, example, HP was a garage at its early times.
221455
The first challenge is getting hired, which will vary in difficulty depending on how low on the totem pole you are willing to start.  A B2B job required a lot more expertise than selling cellphones at the mall.  \n\nThe second, which is related to the first, is building credibility.  Selling to other companies is far differernt from selling cellphones in the mall.  Your clients will be more educated & sophisticated, both in general and in what you are selling and how it applies to their business.  I am assuming you're selling to medium to large companies.  They may even know more than you.  They will look to you as a solutions-provider, not just someone who'd hocking goods.  And if you can't deliver, they'll work with the next guy.\n\nThat's the third challenge.  The competition.  You're not competing with high-school dropouts.  You're competing with educated and trained professionals.  And they've done this longer than you.\n\nI personally enjoy B2B because of the relationships that you build, and the challenge of complex (and expensive) solutions.  You become a de facto part of the customer's business, and a part of its success.  I think that's cool.  I would choose a company that has both a track record of success, but also one that takes the time to nuture you and develop you, ultimately putting you in a position to succeed.\n\nGood luck!!!
1036019
Perfectly optimal, not really.  That's just in textbooks where everyone has perfect information and the rest of the unrealistic assumptions.  It's possible to have a highly efficient firm, though, where it is always trying to cut costs and increase revenues as much as possible.  Where humans are involved, there's a lot of room for non optimal results.
1070839
I don't know all of the ins and outs, but here are some:\n\n-- b2b, there are fewer regulations and limitations.  If a deal goes south, they sue you.  With b2c, there are a lot more consumer protections\n-- ethically, you have limitations on marketing with b2c: advertising to kids, getting kids' personal information, making financial claims, etc.  \n-- with consumers, you've got sales tax (I think only Illinois is trying to collect online sales tax, but others are discussion it).  If they were to charge it, you've got MAJOR issues with figuring out local taxes (It's hard enough with retail companies with several locations)\n\n\nGood luck
1125619
Yeah.  The only ones I've known are the ones online (guru.com is the one I've used).  It seems that an online service has a strategic competitive advantage over any brick and mortar approach to the business, so if you're considering the biz, I'd think about going that direction.  (Cost advantage)\n\nCredibility seems to be the key value being sold in this kind of business.  So, quality of information, quality of services rendered and sought, and quality of brokering the transaction will drive the credibility issue.
580579
Better Buissness bural
411409
An acquisition involves a lot of costs as far as combining IT departments, human resources, training, etc. and not to mention intangibles such as incompatibility between different cultures within the two companies that may arise. Expanding internally, if possible, is much more efficient and less costly. Certain exceptions do exist though. A company should only acquire another if there is some sort of value added to the company. To acquire just to expand is not recommended at all in general.
948583
Of course. This is coopetition (businesses can gain advantage by means of a mixture of competition and cooperation).\n\nSee details at http://www.searchenginelowdown.com/2006/05/wsj-microsoft-yahoo-partnership-to.html
471225
People are lured to this type of opportunity for a variety of reasons. Those that make it work run it like a business. Doesn't sound like you are going to have that much time. Here's a link to help you look around.
754747
Because everyone likes things simple--no one wants to have to fulfill a number of extra "conditions." It looks shady on the business' part, like they're trying to lure you in and then get something extra out of you with the fine print.
667313
The nature of the evolving economy is to continuously remove those people or entities which don't add value through incessant competition - a race to the bottom.  Those "middle-men" need to examine their situation carefully and work out whether:\n\na) they add enough value to be safe from their customers AND their suppliers\nb) they could start to add enough value\nc) they could change their relationship with their suppliers in a way that safeguards their role\nd) they should get out while the getting's good\n\nMy parents owned an independent record store.  They added a lot of value to their customers through ordering, advice, calling them when something new came out which would interest them, etc.  But that only concerned a minority of loyal customers, and they saw the Internet coming and retired while they could.  The people who took over the shop found it folded within two years, partly through increased competition, but partly because they stopped adding that extra value which kept my parents afloat.\n\nIn my industry (IT), resellers are increasingly being squeezed and their role called into question.  My company is now starting to deal direct with customers, despite a long history working with channel partners.  It makes no sense for our sales reps to work for months at a multi-million-dollar corporate sale, and then ask a reseller to take a commission on that sale when we've done all the work.  However, we've traditionally relied on our resellers to perform the installation work as well.  And our delivery mechanisms are fine when the customer doesn't mind when their material arrives (e.g. PCs), but if it's a fleet of printers or servers which needs an installer to arrive at the same time, we get into the issue of staging.  Therefore there could still be a role for resellers to provide staging facilities local to customer sites, and then transport equipment to the final customer sites and perform the installation.  The material just wouldn't go through their books.  This is more in the line of (c) above, and there is money to be made by doing this.\n\nI hope these examples can spark thoughts of how, in your industry, you can find a way of adding value which might be slightly different from what you do today, but which can keep you in business.