A major impediment to B2C success is... the concept 'B2C'

It's been over a decade now. We've forgotten how slow the adoption of consumer Internet commerce has been compared to other Internet growth metrics. And we're surprised when security scares like spyware and phishing result in lurches in consumer use. This paper re-visits an old theme, and finds that consumer marketing is still characterised by aggression and dominance, not sensitivity to customer needs. This conclusion is based on an examination of terms and privacy policy statements, which shows that businesses are confronting the people who buy from them with fixed, unyielding interfaces. Instead of generating trust, marketers prefer to wield power. These hard-headed approaches can work in a number of circumstances. Compelling content is one, but not everyone sells sex, gambling services, short-shelf-life news, and even shorter-shelf-life fashion goods. And, after decades of mass-media-conditioned consumer psychology research and experimentation, it's far from clear that advertising can convert everyone into salivating consumers who 'just have to have' products and services brand-linked to every new trend, especially if what you sell is groceries or handyman supplies. The thesis of this paper is that the one-dimensional, aggressive concept of B2C has long passed its use-by date. Trading is two-way - consumers' attention, money and loyalty, in return for marketers' products and services, and vice versa. So B2C is conceptually wrong, and needs to be replaced by some buzzphrase that better conveys 'B-with-C rather than 'to-C and 'at-C. Implementations of 'customised' services through 'portals' have to mature beyond data-mining-based manipulation to support two-sided relationships, and customer-managed profiles. It's all been said before, but now it's time to listen.