Corporate Gibberish Generator™

Welcome to the Corporate Gibberish Generator™ by Andrew Davidson. andrewdavidson/at\andrewdavidson/dot\com
Enter your company name and click "Generate" to generate several paragraphs of corporate gibberish suitable for pasting into your prospectus.
(The gibberish is geared more toward Internet and technology companies.)

We here at Cinema+Point+Projects believe we know that it is better to unleash intuitively than to integrate virtually. Is it more important for something to be bricks-and-clicks or to be B2B2C? A company that can redefine defiantly will (at some indefinite point in the future) be able to disintermediate elegantly. The subscriber communities factor can be summed up in one word: integrated. The re-purposing factor is killer. The global obfuscation factor is vertical. Is it more important for something to be granular or to be affiliate-based? If you strategize intuitively, you may have to redefine intuitively. Your budget for incentivizing should be at least one-tenth of your budget for enhancing. Quick: do you have a open-source game plan for handling unplanned-for experiences? Without relationships, you will lack development. A company that can leverage easily will (at some point in the future) be able to disintermediate courageously. We will iterate the power of eyeballs to aggregate. At Cinema+Point+Projects, we understand how to brand magnetically. What does the buzzword "web services" really mean? Think nano-value-added. What does the term "TQM" really mean? Our technology takes the best aspects of C++ and HTTP. Think 60/24/7/365. Think B2B2C. Think plug-and-play. But don't think all three at the same time. We understand that if you mesh intuitively then you may also enhance compellingly. If you integrate micro-ultra-globally, you may have to benchmark virally. If all of this sounds confused to you, that's because it is! Quick: do you have a one-to-one plan for coping with new methodologies? Cinema+Point+Projects has permanently altered the idea of angel investors. What does it really mean to recontextualize "compellingly"? What do we aggregate? Anything and everything, regardless of abstruseness! The next-generation TQM factor is holistic. A company that can incubate faithfully will (at some point) be able to reinvent correctly. Is it more important for something to be end-to-end or to be wireless? Your budget for branding should be at least one-half of your budget for deploying. The capacity to envisioneer holistically leads to the ability to reintermediate virtually. We have proven we know that it is better to extend ultra-compellingly than to empower vertically. Think super-global. Have you ever needed to incubate your feature set? With one click? The versioning factor can be summed up in one word: 60/24/7/365. It seems dumbfounding, but it's true! What do we synergize? Anything and everything, regardless of reconditeness! We apply the proverb "When the cat's away, the mice will play" not only to our C2C but our power to architect. Is it more important for something to be dynamic or to be cross-media? Without action-items, you will lack M&A. Our functionality is second to none, but our six-sigma, best-of-breed markets and non-complex operation is often considered a terrific achievement. What does the commonly-used commonly-accepted term "user-centric e-tailers" really mean? If you enable mega-strategically, you may have to utilize globally. Cinema+Point+Projects has refactored the abstraction of development. Your budget for extending should be at least twice your budget for extending. What does it really mean to harness "interactively"? If all of this may seem alarming to you, that's because it is! We constantly embrace customer-directed open-source, cutting-edge, virally-distributed open-source, innovative portals. That is an amazing achievement taking into account this fiscal year's market conditions! What does the term "compelling" really mean? We have come to know that it is better to incubate transparently than to transform proactively. We will innovate the industry jargon "world-class, 60/24/7/365". Imagine a combination of ASP and DOM. Think social-network-based. The e-businesses factor can be summed up in one word: customized. Without client-focused, real-time mindshare, you will lack re-purposing. Our feature set is unmatched in the industry, but our granular interfaces and non-complex operation is often considered an amazing achievement. Cinema+Point+Projects has permanently altered the idea of reporting. Your budget for evolving should be at least twice your budget for synergizing. Quick: do you have a cross-media game plan for managing emerging returns-on-investment? Is it more important for something to be C2C2C or to be cross-media? We frequently reinvent end-to-end obfuscation. That is a remarkable achievement considering this month's market conditions! The virtual, plug-and-play re-purposing reports factor is co-branded. We have come to know that if you envisioneer compellingly then you may also engineer interactively. If all of this seems terrific to you, that's because it is! Quick: do you have a frictionless scheme for handling new B2C2B ubiquitous magnetic re-sizing? The metrics for revolutionary, next-generation raw bandwidth are more well-understood if they are not scalable. What does the standard industry industry jargon "e-services" really mean? The communities factor is dot-com. It may seem wonderful, but it's accurate! Have you ever been unable to benchmark your customer-directed feature set? Right now? The iteration factor is C2C2B, transparent. What do we morph? Anything and everything, regardless of semidarkness! Do you have a scheme to become next-generation? Without partnerships, you will lack paradigms. A company that can scale elegantly will (one day) be able to mesh courageously. If all of this seems unbelievable to you, that's because it is! We will exploit the commonly-accepted term "clicks-and-mortar". Our feature set is unmatched, but our reconfigurable re-sizing management and simple use is often considered an amazing achievement. Is it more important for something to be one-to-one or to be 1000/60/60/24/7/365?