'Business-to-consumer and Business-to-business relationships\r'

'The cargon organization-to- viewr type of alliance is considered as â€Å"economic transactions conducted betwixt psyche consumers and organizations” (van Slyke, Belanger, & Comunale, 2004). There atomic number 18 several(prenominal) differences mingled with this type of marketplace, the business-to-consumer (B2C), and its other counterpart, the business-to-business (B2B) marketplace. It has its synonymic impact to Cavalier Products that take to be considered before venturing into this type of business family. As mentioned earlier, there ar differences between the B2B and B2C type of relationship along several lines.First, the clients of the two ar variant where in the B2B, it is businesses or organizations and in B2C markets, the clients are idiosyncratic consumers (Wright, 2006). Approach towards these two types of clients is different where in the former, buying behavior is considered to be more(prenominal) rational and in the latter, it is influenced by biases and in-person preferences (Wright, 2006). The approach in terms of selling and the selling strategy would be different when dealing with these two types of clients.Second, the sight of sales is entirely different for that of the B2B and B2C business types. It is know that the sales, and consequently the profit derived, is far greater in the transactions that arise from the B2B as compared to the B2C because of the differences in the hire (Moore, Petty, Palich, & Longnecker, 2008). The demand for the B2B is far greater because of the turgidr inevitably of the organizations as compared to individual customers who would not consume as much as what businesses consumer.This is curiously true for the office equipment and materials where there is a greater amount needed for such(prenominal) in an office than for an individual consumer. It alike takes a longer time for the individual consumers to consume a specific bar compared to the businesses who would consume mor e at a faster rate. However, it remains that both of these baksheesh to profits for the bon ton but with corresponding business risks. It is best to conduct an sign study regarding the profitability of a B2C business endeavor through simulation and projection.There are several means through which this could be done without incurring significant losses. From a personal standpoint, there is a feasibleness of such but the problem lies chiefly with the delivery of goods especially for distant areas which request long transportation and careful treatment for the equipment. This is especially true for purchases made for subaltern quantities only and would require a large cost for handling and shipping.This requires additional dispersal centers in the region where the company intends to steep its B2C business. There should be safety nets installed in order to prevent losses and failures when it comes to the inability of the company to meet the demands of the customer as expected b ecause this would also affect the take to it has in its B2B relationships. There should also be a thorough understanding of the company’s capabilities in meeting the volume of demand from both the B2B and B2C clients.When there are sufficient clients, it is deemed better to sell to businesses because of the unceasing demand for the products and the volume required by these organizations. It is significantly large for the company and would pay off on shipping and handling. A B2B relationship would also be easier to handle because the clients are lesser, compared to a B2C market, and would make marketing easier to ruminate and implement. Thus, it has been shown that there are differences and similarities in B2B and B2C markets, which originally lie on the volume and spirit of clients.These are important considerations when venturing into any of the two markets in order to maintain the spirit of the company. References Moore, C. , Petty, J. W. , Palich, L. , & Longnec ker, J. (2008). Managing small business: An entrepreneurial emphasis (14th Ed. ). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning. van Slyke, C. , Belanger, F. , & Comunale, C. (2004). Factors influencing the toleration of web-based hopping: The impact of trust. ACM SIGMIS Database, 35(2), 32-49. Wright, R. 92006). Consumer behavior. London, UK: Thomson Learning.\r\n'