The B2Cization Trap
How B2B borrowed the experience but kept the wrong metrics.
Previously on Giuseppe's Glimpse: In the last episode, we explored what makes innovation actually work through the story of Uniqlo. Missed it? Catch up here! ✨
Buongiorno everyone 👋
I’ve been spending a lot of time recently advising B2B clients who want to learn from my experience in the B2C sector.
The conversation usually starts the same way: “Our platform feels terrible compared to consumer apps. We need to be more like them.”
They’re right that something needs to change. But I think they’re often chasing the wrong thing.
What people mean when they say B2Cization
For years, B2B companies operated on an assumption that complexity in the product justified complexity in the experience. If what you’re selling is complicated, the interface can be complicated too.
That’s not really working anymore.
I don’t reset my expectations when I switch from Spotify to Salesforce, or from Amazon to some enterprise platform. The bar for what feels “good” gets set by the best thing I’ve used recently, and that’s usually consumer software. 🌐
People call this B2Cization. Everyone’s talking about it, but I keep seeing companies interpret it as “make everything simpler and prettier.”
That’s not quite it. B2Cization is more about making complexity navigable when it needs to be there. Making things human-scale even when they’re technically complex.
B2B used to hide behind clunky interfaces, dense documentation, hard-to-navigate systems. The thinking was: this signals we’re serious and robust.
Now clunky just reads as inefficient. If your B2B experience wouldn’t fly in B2C, you’re losing ground and might not notice until it’s too late.
The metric problem
Here’s where I see things go sideways most often: companies assume that because the experience should feel like B2C, the metrics should look like B2C too.
But metrics encode how decisions actually work.
B2C decisions happen fast, individually, and you can usually reverse them if you’re wrong.
B2B decisions are rare, involve multiple people, have high stakes and can make or break careers.
When teams start tracking CTR, CPC and conversion speed the way they would for consumer products, they optimize for the wrong outcomes. 📊
I was reviewing performance data recently for a SaaS company. Their ad click-through rates looked great. Marketing was celebrating.
Then we looked at who was clicking: junior people at small companies. Curious, yes. Able to buy? No. Lots of engagement, zero path to revenue.
CTR and CPC still tell you something useful: whether your message makes sense, whether targeting is roughly correct. But they don’t tell you if you’re reaching buyers or just browsers. If you’re building real confidence or just generating curiosity.
High click-through from the wrong people looks healthy on a dashboard but quietly kills your ROI. Getting attention from people who can’t buy is actually the most expensive kind of attention. 💭
What metrics should actually measure
If B2Cization is happening (and it is), it should push B2B toward better measurement, not just faster measurement.
Less focus on volume, more on relevance. Less on speed, more on legitimacy.
That means elevating signals like:
Are we showing up in the right accounts? (ICP penetration)
Are multiple roles from the same organization engaging? (buying-group coverage)
Are we tracking accounts over time, not just individual sessions?
Are we measuring engagement that leads to sales conversations, not just marketing activity?
Are we tracking time to meaningful dialogue, not time to click?
These don’t make exciting dashboard slides, but they connect to what actually happens in deals. 📈
B2C metrics track persuasion. B2B needs to track reassurance.
While B2C buyers might be trying to maximize delight, B2B buyers are trying to minimize risk, build internal consensus and not get fired for a bad choice. Nobody loses their job for picking the vendor that got vetted by seven people over three months. They definitely lose their job for the quick decision that looked exciting but failed in practice.
B2Cization does and should change expectations about usability. What it doesn’t change is the fact that B2B buying requires trust, credibility and careful evaluation. 🤝
What this looks like in practice
When B2Cization works:
→ Your interface doesn’t require training to navigate. The design helps instead of fighting the user. Complex functions are accessible without being overwhelming.
→ Your explanations are clear but not dumbed down. You don’t pretend the complexity doesn’t exist, you just don’t bury people in it unnecessarily.
→ Your customer journey matches how B2B actually works: multiple stakeholders, long timelines, the need to build consensus internally.
When it fails:
→ You’re celebrating clicks from individuals when deals require organizational buy-in. You’re measuring speed when the process requires depth. You’re tracking engagement from people who will never have budget authority.
→ Expectations about experience have converged between B2B and B2C. How decisions actually get made has not. Treating them the same because interfaces should feel similar is how you end up with metrics that look good but mean nothing. 📉
I see this play out constantly. Marketing wants metrics that show momentum fast. Sales needs metrics that predict revenue months later. When B2Cization gets interpreted as “be more like consumer,” it makes this worse by importing urgency into a process that runs on deliberation.
You can make B2B feel like B2C and get attention, but you win contracts by understanding how B2B actually works. The trick is doing both without confusing which metrics matter for which outcome.
What I’m taking from this
B2Cization is happening whether companies want it or not. User expectations are set by the best experiences they have anywhere, which are usually consumer experiences.
So yes, make your B2B platform feel as good to use as consumer software, remove unnecessary friction, design like you’re designing for actual humans.
But designing the experience and designing the measurement are separate problems. Confusing them costs money.
Companies that sort this out will have smooth experiences and metrics that connect to real outcomes.
Companies that don’t will have dashboards full of healthy-looking numbers generated by people who will never buy.
Stay curious 🙌
-gs
Oh, wow! You made it to the end. Click here to 👉 SHARE this issue with a friend if you found it valuable.