¶ … respect to the report on 3M's e-Business model, the first things that need to be addressed are the grammar and spelling issues. Aside from those, there are other ways in which this report can be improved. The first is to clarify the definitions of B2B and B2C. The definition of B2B is taken by the author to mean marketing consumer products through intermediaries, such as distributors. This in fact is not the definition - a B2B model is where another business is the end user of the product. We see the same problem later in the paper, where the author claims 3M has an unfair competitive advantage, clearly misunderstanding the meaning of the term. A stronger understanding of the core concepts would serve this paper well.

The section on revenue models illustrates two main areas for improvement. One is that the author devotes far too much time to explaining the various revenue models, most of which are ultimately irrelevant to the discussion. The other is that the author is using the same references as before, shoehorning them into the paper without regard for appropriateness. Utilizing more sources would be preferred. Also, there are times when old sources are used for information about online marketing. A paper from 2000 is of questionable relevance given the phenomenal technological advancements in the e-Business sphere over the past nine years.

Overall, the paper lacks cohesion. Sources and concepts have been plucked at random and pasted together. Yet, the facts presented do not support each other. There is no central thesis towards which these random tidbits work. 3M is a huge company - the paper may have been improved by focusing on just one of 3M's businesses. As it is, the reader is left with little sense of what 3M's e-Business strategy is, how it works, or whether it has been successful.