I was recently doing some project research for a public service customer, and stumbled across something that made my blood boil. If theres one thing that starts me ranting, its when service providers (be they private or public sector) refer to their CUSTOMERS as 'consumers', 'clients', or even 'users'.
In order to understand this better, lets take a look one example, it's meaning, and the implications of using such a word to describe the people (be they individuals or groups) who should be the raison d'etre, the lifeblood, and at the heart of any business.
Now, you may consider this to be a pointless exercise, after all 'who really cares what we call 'em?'. The answer is that we (as service providers) should all care about it, because the way that we describe our customers has a bearing on how we perceive them and, consequently, how we treat them.
In fact, how we describe our customers has become so important to some of us that we publish a glossy colour document on the subject. Step forward the UK's National CONSUMER Council.
The NCC recently (2007) went to the trouble of publishing what can only be described as a promotional brochure entitled, 'Consumer: Whats In A Name? Why It Can Be Helpful To Think Of People As Consumers'. This 16 page document sets out to try and convince us that, for some reason, the word 'Consumer' doesn't have negative connotations, and that 'its okay' to call people 'consumers'. The only people they are trying to convince is themselves, and this is just a cynical PR ploy to make the National Consumer Council sound a more 'with it' organisation - lets face it, they're stuck with the name! Don't get me wrong, the NCC do some great stuff and are extremely pro-active when it comes to customer rights, but this campaign was a thinly veiled attempt to re-brand themselves. To download this amazing document (330kb), CLICK HERE
My favourite quote from 'Consumer: What's In A Name?'...
"Using the word consumer means recognising that consumers and providers of goods and services are different and will often have conflicting interests. It recognises the power imbalance between providers and consumers."
Fair point. There is an imbalance at work here, and one that describes an adversarial relationship where the 'consumer' wants more for less, and the provider wants to offer less for more. Rather than just highlight the issue, and neatly use the word 'consumer' to make reference to this relationship, shouldn't we do something about it and work towards a more collaborative approach to the relationship? By referring to people as 'consumers' only goes to justify this state of affairs - NOT address it!
The dictionary definition of the word CONSUMER:
1. a person or thing that consumes; 2. a person or organisation that uses a commodity or service; 3. an organism, usually an animal, that feeds on plants or other animals.
Now, bearing this in mind, what do you think of when you hear the word CONSUMER? Is it an individual who uses a service and expects to be treated fairly and with reverence, or is it this...
Now, you may consider this to be a pointless exercise, after all 'who really cares what we call 'em?'. The answer is that we (as service providers) should all care about it, because the way that we describe our customers has a bearing on how we perceive them and, consequently, how we treat them.
In fact, how we describe our customers has become so important to some of us that we publish a glossy colour document on the subject. Step forward the UK's National CONSUMER Council.
The NCC recently (2007) went to the trouble of publishing what can only be described as a promotional brochure entitled, 'Consumer: Whats In A Name? Why It Can Be Helpful To Think Of People As Consumers'. This 16 page document sets out to try and convince us that, for some reason, the word 'Consumer' doesn't have negative connotations, and that 'its okay' to call people 'consumers'. The only people they are trying to convince is themselves, and this is just a cynical PR ploy to make the National Consumer Council sound a more 'with it' organisation - lets face it, they're stuck with the name! Don't get me wrong, the NCC do some great stuff and are extremely pro-active when it comes to customer rights, but this campaign was a thinly veiled attempt to re-brand themselves. To download this amazing document (330kb), CLICK HERE
My favourite quote from 'Consumer: What's In A Name?'...
"Using the word consumer means recognising that consumers and providers of goods and services are different and will often have conflicting interests. It recognises the power imbalance between providers and consumers."
Fair point. There is an imbalance at work here, and one that describes an adversarial relationship where the 'consumer' wants more for less, and the provider wants to offer less for more. Rather than just highlight the issue, and neatly use the word 'consumer' to make reference to this relationship, shouldn't we do something about it and work towards a more collaborative approach to the relationship? By referring to people as 'consumers' only goes to justify this state of affairs - NOT address it!
The dictionary definition of the word CONSUMER:
1. a person or thing that consumes; 2. a person or organisation that uses a commodity or service; 3. an organism, usually an animal, that feeds on plants or other animals.
Now, bearing this in mind, what do you think of when you hear the word CONSUMER? Is it an individual who uses a service and expects to be treated fairly and with reverence, or is it this...
A Plague Of Consumers Yesterday
No comments:
Post a Comment