We could have predicted that the tech sector would reduce a hip music lover's service to vaporous jargon. First there was B-to-C (business-to-consumer), although no one really started calling those companies anything more complicated than e-commerce sites or "e-tailers" until the big B-to-B craze kicked in. (That's business-to-business.) Then the abbreviation mania accelerated, driving business plan scribes to reduce their company descriptions to single-letter catch phrases that defy comprehension. "My B-to-B is gonna eat your P-to-P!"

But is there anything really novel about a B-to-B-to-C, except for the alphabet soup? Can a company really foster better communication with its employees if they call the software they use to do it a B-to-E, (where "E" is for employees)? P-to-P is a particularly comical new coinage for a business model since the phrase starkly points out that there's no middleman -- so how can anyone possibly make any money?

But in the off chance that this super-succinct method of communicating turns out to be more efficient, we really should be working on a glossary. Imagine the alphabet books for toddlers of the future. From here on out A is no longer for apple. It's A is for advertiser. B is for business, obviously. C is for consumer. D is for developer -- or maybe dummies. E is for employee. F is for Fortune 500. G is for garage start-up ... M is for monetized eyeballs ... Z is for zero-sum game.

macromedia.com
Visit our site to learn more about our vision of what the Web can be.