While thinking about my career direction, I happened to come across a book about B2B: The Essence of To B: Industry Logic and Business Operations by Shang Shu.
Many roles seem to have the word “business” somewhere in their titles. My background has mainly been in scientific research within science and engineering, so I have indeed had limited exposure to real commercial settings, even though I have always quietly observed how different industries operate.
So, I thought I should first figure out what business actually means—quite reasonable, although perhaps a little late.
Previously, if someone had asked me about the difference between B2B and B2C, I could have answered confidently:
B2B sells to businesses, while B2C sells to individual consumers.
Correct, but almost useless.
After reading this book, I began to understand that B2B is not simply B2C with a larger customer and a more expensive contract. It has its own industry structure, decision-making logic, product requirements, sales process, delivery challenges, and long-term customer relationships.
Most importantly, B2B sales is never just the responsibility of the sales department.
中文
在思考职业方向的路上，偶然间，我读了一本关于 B2B 的书《To B 的本质：行业逻辑与商业运作》，尚书著。
很多岗位里似乎都带着 “business”，我的专业背景主要是理工科的科学研究，确实缺少商业化的场景，即使我一直在默默地观察每个行业的运作逻辑。
所以我想，我是不是应该先弄明白：商业到底是什么？这个思路很合理，虽然好像稍微晚了一点。
以前如果有人问我 B2B 和 B2C 的区别，我大概会很自信地回答：
B2B 是卖给企业，B2C 是卖给个人消费者。
没错，但几乎没什么用。
读完这本书后，我才慢慢意识到，B2B 并不是“客户更大、合同更贵”的 B2C。它有自己的行业结构、决策逻辑、产品要求、销售流程、交付难点，以及更长期的客户关系。
更重要的是，B2B 销售从来不只是销售部门一个人的事。
The Customer Is Not One Person
In B2C, the person who likes the product, pays for it, and uses it is often the same person. I like a dress, I check the price, and I buy it. The decision can be completed in several minutes—sometimes several seconds if I am not rational enough.
But a company does not make decisions like one person.
In a B2B transaction, the person who first contacts the supplier may not be the person who uses the product. The user may not control the budget. The person who approves the budget may not understand the technical details. Meanwhile, another department may worry that the new solution will create more work for them.
For example, when a company purchases an ERP system, management may want more transparent data, sales may want a better CRM process, finance may care about invoicing and compliance, and warehouse employees may only want the system to be easy enough to use every day.
They are all “the customer,” but they do not necessarily want the same thing.
This explains why B2B sales can take such a long time. It is not always because the salesperson has failed to persuade the customer. Sometimes the customer is still trying to persuade itself.
中文
在 B2C 里，喜欢产品的人、付钱的人和最后使用的人，很多时候是同一个人。比如我看中一条裙子，确认一下价格，然后买下它。整个决定可能只需要几分钟——如果我不够理性，可能只需要几秒。
但公司不会像一个人那样做决定。
在一笔 B2B 交易里，最先联系供应商的人未必是最后的使用者；真正使用产品的人可能没有预算权；批准预算的人又不一定懂技术细节；与此同时，另一个部门可能正在担心：这个新系统会不会只是给我们增加工作量？
比如一家公司购买 ERP 系统，管理层想要更透明的数据，销售团队想要更顺畅的 CRM 流程，财务关心发票和合规，仓库员工可能只希望这个系统不要太难用，至少每天打开它的时候不要头疼。
他们都是“客户”，但他们想要的东西并不完全一样。
这也解释了为什么 B2B 销售周期经常那么长。并不一定是销售没有说服客户，有时候，是客户内部还没有成功说服自己。
A Good Product Is Only the Beginning
Another idea that impressed me is that product functions alone rarely create a sustainable advantage.
At first, this was slightly confusing to me. If one company builds a better product, shouldn’t customers naturally choose it?
Not necessarily.
In enterprise software, useful functions can be studied and copied. Competitors may eventually offer similar features. At that point, a company cannot rely only on saying, “Our product can do this.”
The more difficult question is:
Can this product create value inside the customer’s real business process?
A technically powerful system may still fail if the implementation is poor, the data is disorganized, employees do not know how to use it, or the company’s original workflow is already chaotic.
This is something I can understand from my research experience. A sophisticated scientific instrument does not automatically produce reliable results. Users still need proper sample preparation, clear operating procedures, training, troubleshooting, and sometimes emotional support after seeing an unexpected error message.
Honestly, the machine is often innocent.
The same logic applies to B2B products. Technology matters, but the final value is jointly created by the product, implementation, service, and customer’s ability to adopt it.
中文
另一个让我印象很深的观点是：单靠产品功能，很难建立长期的优势。
一开始我其实有点困惑。如果一家公司真的做出了更好的产品，客户难道不会自然选择它吗？
还真不一定。
在企业软件领域，一个好用的功能可以被研究，也可以被模仿。竞争对手迟早可能做出相似的功能。到了那个时候，一家公司不能只反复强调：“我们的产品可以做到这个。”
更难、也更重要的问题是：
这个产品能不能真正进入客户的业务流程，并在里面创造价值？
一个技术上很强大的系统，仍然可能失败。实施不到位、数据一团乱、员工不会使用，或者企业原本的流程就已经足够混乱——这些问题都不是多加几个功能就能解决的。
这一点，我可以从自己的科研经历里理解。一台很先进的科学仪器，并不会自动产出可靠的结果。用户仍然需要正确地处理样品、遵循清晰的操作流程、接受培训、排查故障，有时候还需要在突然跳出一条报错信息后得到一点情绪支持。
说实话，机器经常是无辜的。
B2B 产品也是一样。技术当然重要，但最终的价值，是由产品、实施、服务，以及客户自身采用它的能力共同创造出来的。
The Contract Is Not the Final Result
I used to think that sales success meant signing a contract. Now I see that, in B2B, the contract is closer to a promise than a result.
Everything promised before the sale must eventually be delivered by someone.
If sales promises too much, the implementation team receives an impossible project. If the implementation team only completes technical configuration without understanding the customer’s goal, the software may go live but create little business value. If no one continues to support adoption, the customer may purchase the product and then barely use it.
This is why sales, product, implementation, support, and customer success are deeply connected.
Customer success is especially interesting to me because it asks a question beyond “Did we sell the product?”
It asks:
Did the customer actually achieve the expected result?
This changes the meaning of a customer relationship. A B2B company is not simply trying to complete one transaction. It needs to build the ability to continuously deliver value while controlling its own service costs. Being endlessly helpful without a sustainable service model is probably not customer success—it is charity.
中文
我以前会觉得，销售成功就是签下合同。现在我更愿意把 B2B 里的合同理解成一个承诺，而不是最终结果。
因为销售前说过的每一句话，最后都需要有人把它交付出来。
如果销售承诺得太多，实施团队接到的可能就是一个无法完成的项目；如果实施团队只完成技术配置，却没有理解客户真正想解决的问题，软件或许上线了，但并没有创造多少商业价值；如果后续没有人推动采用，客户也可能买完产品之后，几乎不用。
所以，销售、产品、实施、支持和 Customer Success 其实是紧紧连在一起的。
Customer Success 特别吸引我的地方，是它会继续追问一个比“产品卖出去了吗”更深入的问题：
客户最后真的实现了预期结果吗？
这个问题改变了客户关系的含义。B2B 公司并不只是要完成一笔交易，它还需要在控制自身服务成本的同时，建立持续交付价值的能力。
如果没有可持续的服务模式，只是一味地对客户有求必应，那大概也不叫 Customer Success——那叫慈善。
Industry Knowledge Is Part of the Product
The book also helped me understand why industry experience appears so frequently in B2B job descriptions.
Previously, I sometimes interpreted it as a conservative hiring preference: companies wanted someone who had already done exactly the same job in exactly the same industry.
There may still be some truth in that. However, industry knowledge also has real commercial value.
A person who understands an industry knows how customers operate, where risks usually appear, which problems are urgent, who influences decisions, and what kind of value customers are willing to pay for.
Product knowledge tells us what the solution can do. Industry knowledge tells us why the customer should care.
This does not mean that people can never move across industries. It means that entering a new industry requires more than memorizing product information. We need to understand how money, information, responsibility, and decisions move through the customer’s business.
中文
这本书也让我重新理解了，为什么 B2B 的招聘信息里总是频繁出现“行业经验”。
以前我有时会把它理解成一种比较保守的招聘偏好：公司只想找一个在同一个行业里，已经做过一模一样工作的人。
这种情况当然可能存在。但行业知识本身，确实也有真实的商业价值。
真正理解一个行业的人，会知道客户平时怎样运转、风险通常出现在哪里、哪些问题最紧急、谁会影响决策，以及客户究竟愿意为什么样的价值付钱。
产品知识告诉我们：这个解决方案能做什么。
行业知识告诉我们：客户为什么要在意。
这并不意味着人永远不能跨行业。它只是意味着，进入一个新行业不能只靠背产品资料。我们还需要理解资金、信息、责任和决策，是怎样在客户的业务里流动的。
What This Means for Me
As someone moving from scientific research toward business and client-facing work, I used to worry that I lacked a traditional commercial background.
Now I think my real task is more specific: I need to translate some abilities I already have into a business context.
Research trained me to investigate unclear problems, test assumptions, analyze evidence, learn unfamiliar systems, and continue when the first answer did not work. Technical support taught me that users do not always describe the real cause of a problem. Exhibitions taught me that people respond better when I become curious about their work instead of repeating a prepared introduction.
These experiences are not yet a complete business skill set, of course. But they give me a place to start.
My current understanding is that B2B is a system in which product, industry knowledge, sales, delivery, and customer outcomes must work together. Sales is only the visible entrance. Behind it is the entire commercial operation of a company.
Perhaps this is also why I am interested in roles that sit between technology and business. I enjoy understanding something complicated, reorganizing it, and explaining it in a way that another person can actually use.
I am still exploring the business world, but at least I now have a better first question.
Instead of only asking, “How can we sell this product?”
I should ask:
“How does this customer’s business work, and where can we genuinely create value?”
中文
作为一个正在从科学研究走向商业和客户面对型工作的人，我以前会担心，自己没有传统的商业背景。
但现在我觉得，我真正要做的事情其实更具体：把自己已经拥有的一些能力，翻译到商业语境里。
科研训练让我习惯调查模糊的问题、验证假设、分析证据、学习陌生系统，也让我在第一个答案行不通的时候继续往下找。技术支持的经历让我明白，用户描述出来的问题，不一定就是真正的问题。展会经历则让我发现，比起重复一段准备好的自我介绍，当我真正对对方的工作产生好奇时，人们通常更愿意和我交流。
这些经历当然还不能组成一套完整的商业技能，但至少给了我一个可以出发的位置。
目前我对 B2B 的理解是：它是一个需要产品、行业知识、销售、交付和客户结果共同运转的系统。销售只是最容易被看见的入口，在它背后，是一家公司完整的商业运作。
也许这正是我为什么会对那些位于技术和商业之间的岗位感兴趣。我喜欢先理解一件复杂的事情，再把它重新整理清楚，最后用一种别人真的能用得上的方式解释出来。
我还在探索商业世界，但至少现在，我有了一个更好的起点。
与其只问：“我们要怎样把这个产品卖出去？”
我更应该问：
“这个客户的业务究竟是怎样运转的？我们又能在哪里真正创造价值？”