As someone currently writing for B2B brands that aren't Zoom, this doesn't really feel true. People are not going to start caring about an agricultural shipping company or a vehicle lift manufacturer because business and life are blurring https://adweek.it/3cGfJy5 

He's right that B2B is advertising to a person and not an institution. B2B could be more accessible, more original, and more emotion-driven. But....Zoom is one very specific/very convenient example?

Zoom is the type of B2B product that is easy to grasp--easily explained for a B2C audience. There are MANY B2B brands that simply can't do this. They are too far from being relevant to the average consumer because they are too niche or too technical to be easily explained

Not to mention the average consumer would never have a use for them. That said, I do agree that the B2B and B2C labels are kind of bullshit and box brands in, especially when agencies refuse to see the creative challenges in B2B. If we didn't use those labels what could we use?

ALSO let us not forget that regular people don't even know or care what B2B and B2C mean. In fact recently one of my clients' colleagues reviewing some brand work (in a very B2B space lol) did not know what B2B meant. So. Does any of it matter? WHO KNOWS

I don't know what my point is in this thread other than I read an article this morning and it got me thinking! OK back to your Wednesday.