There are organizations or entities whose denomination is popularly known by their acronyms, that is, the first letters that form the name of certain organizations. So, instead of saying United Nations, one can directly say UN.
The function of abbreviations is double: on the one hand, they serve to simplify the language; on the other hand, to achieve greater communicative effectiveness. It is easier to say PSDB than to use the full term, Partido Social Democrático Brasileiro. Thus, it can be said that the acronyms serve as a principle of economy in language.
From a marketing point of view, the use of acronyms makes it possible to better identify an identity. Marketing professionals are well aware of the usefulness of acronyms, because through them a better effectiveness in communication is achieved.
As a general rule, the use of acronyms makes sense when dealing with well-known organizations in society, for example, DRAE, NGO, PIB, IBM, among others.
Acronyms should not be confused with abbreviations, as the abbreviation is the reduction of a word, for example, etc. means et cetera; A/C to care and BC equates to before Christ.
The acronym concept cannot be confused with acronym, as the acronym exists when the acronyms form a word (the term laser is formed by the expression Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation; or ICT which means Information and Communications Technology). In this way, every acronym is an acronym, but not every acronym is an acronym.
The most common is to assume that an acronym is known. Let's take an example: AVE (model train) is a well-known acronym in Spain, but not outside the country; Argentines know the meaning of DGI, but the rest of the world does not. Another common mistake is the abuse of acronyms. Thus, if a journalist writes “At the UN, the members of the IMF met to discuss the US GDP and address the problems of NATO”, we would be facing technically correct information, but with an excess of acronyms (five in the same sentence).
Some linguists warn about the impoverishment of language as a result of the abuse of acronyms. It is not a question of not using them when it is convenient, but of being used with a certain measure.
A fair rule for the correct use of acronyms would be to take into account the context of the communication. In this way, when we know that the interlocutor knows the meaning of certain acronyms, their use makes sense. For example, a doctor can address another using acronyms specific to the specialty they share, but in the communication between doctor and patient, the language is different.