There is a test for distinguishing an architecture from a "marketecture," according to John Tibbetts, consultant at Kinexis in San Francisco.
Architecture shows technical components and their relationships. Each box in the diagram contains some architectural element, such as a service or resource manager; each wall between boxes represents a real-life, definable, publishable interface such as an application program interface.
Marketecture, on the other hand, uses an architectural-looking diagram, but the arrangement of the pieces has no real technical significance. Marketectural diagrams are like a set of shelves that display products, components, and standards to the consumer, but don't really represent how the software works.
The test for distinguishing architecture from marketecture is: If you remove all the product names, does the diagram still help you understand the nature of the problem?
An architecture, such as the Open Blueprint, maintains its value even when components are missing, because the shape and behavior of an absent component can be inferred from its position, its neighbors, the interfaces surrounding it, etc. But when products are missing from a marketecture -- only an attractively arranged product line, after all -- all that is left is dead air.
Finally, a true enterprise architecture frees users from vendor entanglements; marketecture binds them.