'Customer' is a misleading term if the person in question does not pay for the product. Given the abundance of free products (both past and present), 'User' has become the norm.
Customer is however a convenient term for a payment processor, where everyone is either a merchant (customer) or payer (customer's customer).
I worked on the enterprise side of the fence (SGI, NetApp, VMware) from 1998 to 2009. We always called them "users" there, too, even though they paid us gobs of money. We do this for the same reason manufacturers of hammers call their customers "customers" when they're buying and selling hammers, but call them "users" when they're using the tool, however they came to possess it. Software is a tool; the people using it are users.
"Customer" emphasizes the transactional side of the relationship. If your check bounces, or you pirated your copy, etc., you're no longer a "customer".
People who use Twitter are paying for the product, just inadvertently.
I think there's a deeper issue at work here that something like App.net addresses.
There is a complete disconnect between buyer and seller. When someone is using Twitter, they are paying for it by selling their data, but this is just implied.
I think that the industry could solve a whole bunch of issues by:
1.) Charging for their service.
2.) Paying people for their data.
It could be that both balance each other out. It could be some other mechanism. Maybe you earn money, maybe you hold on to your data and you just pay for the full cost of using a service.
Whatever the solution, I think we should start using the term 'customer' and making explicit what is already implied when we're using a 'free' service.
Just look at FB, Twitter, Tumblr. We are customers to them because we're clicking on ads, interacting with the site, and driving traffic. If those sites were a store, and we walked in and looked around, would we be considered customers or users? Customers.
Customer also means something very different from user when you're building line of business software. A "user" works for the business. A "customer" is the user's customer, not your customer.
It's fairly alarming to read company dictats like this one. I hate to think that anyone could have some split second change of mind about the use of a particular word and then try to force it on the rest of the culture, top-down.
Yes, there's some sense in which "user" connotes a detachment from the people who use the programs you create, but I hopefully Square isn't such a centralised culture that the CEO gets to decide on it in isolation from "the team".
Since when are start-ups a Democracy? Are only bottom up decisions allowed or must everything happen organically? I don't think a decision like this needs a company wide referendum. I actually think it would be a waste of time and resources and create an unnecessary distraction.
I find it refreshing Square is open enough to listen to its newest board member and allow them to make an immediate impact. While small this change may not have come from the current culture that is more tech heavy and take the term user for granted.
What's alarming about establishing communication best practices from the top? Having everybody use the same lingo for talking about product development is essential. This decision will help the engineering culture become inherently more empathetic to towards their end users.
Mind you, this was prompted by a question from Howard Schultz, CEO of Starbucks. You know, the company that endlessly confuses people with the words Tall, Grande, and Venti :-)
But while an industry outsider may be unfamiliar with the term "user," I've never worked anywhere where we didn't have the highest appreciation for, and commitment to, the people who use our software. The term does not have any negative connotation to it, and there's not an industry-wide problem here to fix.
I imagine Schultz has probably heard some derogatory comments about "Starbucks users". For companies that provide a service (as opposed to a product), it probably sounds more innocuous, to the point where you wouldn't question it.
Edit: to be clear, I'm referring to someone saying "users" in the sense of "drug users". "McDonald's users" is another one I hear occasionally.
'User' only seems depersonalizing because of familiarity. Use 'customer' as habitually, and it too will eventually seem generic. And then, expect posts about how 'customer' compresses our understanding of these people to an economically reductionist relationship. (The 'euphemistic treadmill' is a related concept.)
Ultimately, an attitude can make up for the word choice. For example, if you say 'user' with the same reverence as do the software agents in the original 'Tron' movie, you'll be paying the users way more respect than 'customer' grants.
To some extent I'd agree, but these patterns are already deeply ingrained into corporate-speak external to any particular startup culture. Language such as "user issue" versus "customer feedback" is generally an indicator of importance. Perhaps not very meaningful (depending on your perspective), but important nonetheless.
Wow that was reactive and heavy handed. The answer isn't to stop using the word user. The word user has it place. Certian conversations need a generic term for the people who "Use" your software where other conversations need a more specific word for the people who use your software such as "Cupcake business owner", "Deli Cashier", etc.
User is not a bad word. However, its not the right word to use to describe some one who uses your software at times (Sometimes you want a more detailed word), and sometimes "user" is the right word (You are talking big idea, vision, less detail). eg. "How many users are hitting our server right now?" "We have 20,000 people submitting tweets, and 1,200,000 people reading tweets."
When forming the US Government they had to name the new position. Some wanted it to be regal and powerful, others wanted to keep it humble so the leader wouldn't let the power get to his head. Originally the title President was the lowest and most humble title they could think of for the head of state in the new United States. You only presided over a meeting. Now due to it labeling the position of power the connotation has changed and everyone wants to be President.
Thousands of people, referred to in documents as "customers", are alleged to be directly funding the suspicious private activities of a Jack Dorsey and his co-conspirators at a little-known pseudobank called Square.
Users.
Sounds like a bunch of junkies or gigolos, doesn't it?
The people who visit web sites aren't "users," click-throughs, hits, numbers on a spreadsheet, or some other form of dehumanizing jargon. They're your husband, your mom, your friend, the guy who sits in the cube next to you. They're real PEOPLE, just like you and me.
That's why we think a successful site is one that makes real people's lives easier; One that makes them say, "This site worked for me." So we've made it our mission to ensure this kind of experience at the sites we build. At 37signals we don't see users, we see people.
I love "getting real" and all the entire philosophy that 37signals brings, but how does this vitriolic comment even make sense? How are you supposed to talk about the people you are designing software for without a generic term? I guess you could say "this happens when the 'person' clicks that" "I think that this menu is more 'person' friendly than that one", but then you're just replacing one generic term with another, and really, what's the point. Claiming some sort of moral high ground based on the usage of generic vocabulary is ridiculous.
"Buyer" or "seller" is interesting since it makes a functional distinction.
But "Customer" or "user" is just a word choice without an inherent distinction. The way either word is used is very heavily dependent on corporate culture. If a company uses "user" in an cold, impersonal way, it's guaranteed they'll use "customer" in exactly the same way.
"Users" is a powerful word. It reflects the things that matter to those who use the tools we create: usefulness, usability, and most of all -- the simple fact that what we create is used by people to do something.
To eliminate the word "user", I have to say "the people formerly known as users but who will now be known as the people who use our app." I cannot call them "people", because our users are a specific subset of people... they are people in context that matters, deeply. The context of using something we made.
I have always agreed with those who say that if you have a problem with employees dissing users, the problem does not live in the word "users". If they don't think of users as people, fix that first. I am more concerned that the word customer puts the focus on people-who-pay vs. people-who-use.
I think the problem is precisely the opposite: not enough people think of their customers as users. For example, we tell our authors to think of their readers as users, not just readers. They're not buying our books to be exposed to our prose... They're trying to use what's in there to do something they care about.
It's a lot more useful to take this advice as, "Reconsider the ways in which you talk about people who use your product or service."
It's not "call them customers" or "call them buyers/sellers"; just think about what makes sense, what evokes the right thoughts, and use that word instead. If 'users' works for you, then keep doing that.
I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with the term "user." It's a top-level generic term that could be broken down to better describe those who use your service. In Square's case, that's "buyers" and "sellers" who are both "customers" of the Square platform.
It seems obvious, but I understand what Dorsey's getting at. I've struggled with finding appropriately specific identifiers, and when in doubt just lumped everyone together as "users."
Context matters. Square happens to be one of those paid services whose categories of "users" are pretty easy to identify and name. Like you guys mentioned in your comments, redefining specific terms for "users" of free services and search engines isn't quite as simple. I would suggest "freeloaders" or "browsers" but that would take us in the wrong direction :)
Customer abstracts people as well. Why not just call people... people?
Kind of interesting that the CEO of Twitter and Square has the time to think and write blog posts about referring to people as "users" or "customers" internally. Must be a tough and time-consuming job.
The user is not necessarily the customer, or the buyer.
In a company, the buyer or customer may be a manager but the user the members of his team.
In a consumer product, the buyer or customer may be a middle-aged man but the user his 12 years old daughter.
Words have meanings, and randomly inverting them will only cause more confusion. When you sell a product it's important to know who is the custmomer and who is the user. If they're not the same person they will have different goals and needs, and it is important to understand them.
While I agree with the general idea, "customer" implies a specific sort of relation (one where consideration is knowingly and directly exchanged for a good or service). Twitter's customers, for example, are advertisers. What do you call all those people who use Twitter as a personal communication platform?
Calling those people customers may perhaps cause subtle shifts in Twitter's behavior such that it would be more aligned with those people's interests, but it wouldn't be accurate!
which argues that speaking of "users" is a mark of respect for their intelligence and autonomy, and that the computer industry is going astray by failing to speak of them.
Companies that throw the word "users" around a lot tend to not spend a lot of time actually understanding the people using their product.
Every time I've been responsible for a product, the first thing I've done is make sure we have accurate personas with actual names. Who are the real people using our product? Why are the using it? What makes them happy or sad about it?
I've found that, when presented with good personas, engineering becomes more empathetic for the people using the product, and, as a result, make products that are better for those people (as opposed to better for the engineers, which tends to happen when engineers aren't empathizing with their users).
And I also don't think "users" is a word that needs to be excised from software producer's vocabulary. There are times when you need a word that describes your customers, partners, etc. If you aren't careful, any word you choose there will become too generic.
Frequenters of free sites are paying with their time and attention. If you don't return value for time and attention to these customers, they will move on.
If you don't consider yourself a servant of your customers, and work to please them, your contempt is going to come out instead. I got tired of being used by Facebook. I don't feel that anyone has my back at Facebook. I moved on.
By contrast there are a few sites that bend over backwards to delight me, their customer, whether or not they charge me money or make money from me. Customer service sets great sites apart from sites not worth my time.
Often, especially in BTB offerings, it makes a lot of sense to differentiate "customer" from "user." Take for example: the decision-maker who signs the deal and writes the check never actually uses the product, instead has staff which does so. Differentiating the customer from the user is very important in this context: you have to make and keep both happy. The customer will consider net impact to bottom line, high-level capabilities generally present in the market place, and the general temperature of the users before buying. They will expect that you have a certain list of capabilities which everyone else is selling them, even if their users will hardly, if ever, use that feature. The day-to-day users of the product, however, will have less abstract problems - they have real tasks to achieve every day, and will care much more about the specific capabilities and how they're implemented.
Sure, we could call them "decision-making" customer and "product-using" customer, but semantics driving psychology work the other way around as well : sales is customer-driven, and development and support are user-driven. Same end result is achieved, while using natural language for the target audience.
Today I completed a feature on our site nitrotype.com where "users" can report other "users" with offensive Display Names (mostly kids play, and they love their offensive names...). The link said "Report User". Based on this, I am changing it to "Report Player".
This is subtle, but it actually feels better to me. Building it as "user" wasn't even a thought, but in truth to a player playing a game, it is an odd abstract term in the context.
[+] [-] johnrob|13 years ago|reply
Customer is however a convenient term for a payment processor, where everyone is either a merchant (customer) or payer (customer's customer).
[+] [-] kmavm|13 years ago|reply
"Customer" emphasizes the transactional side of the relationship. If your check bounces, or you pirated your copy, etc., you're no longer a "customer".
[+] [-] williamcotton|13 years ago|reply
I think there's a deeper issue at work here that something like App.net addresses.
There is a complete disconnect between buyer and seller. When someone is using Twitter, they are paying for it by selling their data, but this is just implied.
I think that the industry could solve a whole bunch of issues by:
1.) Charging for their service.
2.) Paying people for their data.
It could be that both balance each other out. It could be some other mechanism. Maybe you earn money, maybe you hold on to your data and you just pay for the full cost of using a service.
Whatever the solution, I think we should start using the term 'customer' and making explicit what is already implied when we're using a 'free' service.
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ezpassmac|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] breakall|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ErrantX|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] biot|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] martindale|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anon808|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] calpaterson|13 years ago|reply
Yes, there's some sense in which "user" connotes a detachment from the people who use the programs you create, but I hopefully Square isn't such a centralised culture that the CEO gets to decide on it in isolation from "the team".
[+] [-] SethMurphy|13 years ago|reply
I find it refreshing Square is open enough to listen to its newest board member and allow them to make an immediate impact. While small this change may not have come from the current culture that is more tech heavy and take the term user for granted.
[+] [-] interg12|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Fjslfj|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] paulrademacher|13 years ago|reply
But while an industry outsider may be unfamiliar with the term "user," I've never worked anywhere where we didn't have the highest appreciation for, and commitment to, the people who use our software. The term does not have any negative connotation to it, and there's not an industry-wide problem here to fix.
[+] [-] decklin|13 years ago|reply
Edit: to be clear, I'm referring to someone saying "users" in the sense of "drug users". "McDonald's users" is another one I hear occasionally.
[+] [-] zachrose|13 years ago|reply
It wouldn't surprise me if this were a designed response from Starbucks, encouraging their customers to develop and internalize the Starbucks dialect.
[+] [-] gojomo|13 years ago|reply
Ultimately, an attitude can make up for the word choice. For example, if you say 'user' with the same reverence as do the software agents in the original 'Tron' movie, you'll be paying the users way more respect than 'customer' grants.
[+] [-] flomo|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] csmeder|13 years ago|reply
User is not a bad word. However, its not the right word to use to describe some one who uses your software at times (Sometimes you want a more detailed word), and sometimes "user" is the right word (You are talking big idea, vision, less detail). eg. "How many users are hitting our server right now?" "We have 20,000 people submitting tweets, and 1,200,000 people reading tweets."
[+] [-] knieveltech|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Spellman|13 years ago|reply
When forming the US Government they had to name the new position. Some wanted it to be regal and powerful, others wanted to keep it humble so the leader wouldn't let the power get to his head. Originally the title President was the lowest and most humble title they could think of for the head of state in the new United States. You only presided over a meeting. Now due to it labeling the position of power the connotation has changed and everyone wants to be President.
[+] [-] graue|13 years ago|reply
Your attitude toward your users/customers/whatever matters. The word you call them, not so much.
[+] [-] pdog|13 years ago|reply
You're only a customer (uh)
Walkin' in the presence of hustlers
You spend money all night long
"All night long."
[+] [-] lazugod|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anon808|13 years ago|reply
The people who visit web sites aren't "users," click-throughs, hits, numbers on a spreadsheet, or some other form of dehumanizing jargon. They're your husband, your mom, your friend, the guy who sits in the cube next to you. They're real PEOPLE, just like you and me.
That's why we think a successful site is one that makes real people's lives easier; One that makes them say, "This site worked for me." So we've made it our mission to ensure this kind of experience at the sites we build. At 37signals we don't see users, we see people.
http://37signals.com/01.html
. . . just as relevant in this bullshit bubble as it was in the last.
[+] [-] woah|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] recuter|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] waterlesscloud|13 years ago|reply
But "Customer" or "user" is just a word choice without an inherent distinction. The way either word is used is very heavily dependent on corporate culture. If a company uses "user" in an cold, impersonal way, it's guaranteed they'll use "customer" in exactly the same way.
[+] [-] KSierra|13 years ago|reply
To eliminate the word "user", I have to say "the people formerly known as users but who will now be known as the people who use our app." I cannot call them "people", because our users are a specific subset of people... they are people in context that matters, deeply. The context of using something we made.
I have always agreed with those who say that if you have a problem with employees dissing users, the problem does not live in the word "users". If they don't think of users as people, fix that first. I am more concerned that the word customer puts the focus on people-who-pay vs. people-who-use.
I think the problem is precisely the opposite: not enough people think of their customers as users. For example, we tell our authors to think of their readers as users, not just readers. They're not buying our books to be exposed to our prose... They're trying to use what's in there to do something they care about.
[+] [-] saraid216|13 years ago|reply
It's not "call them customers" or "call them buyers/sellers"; just think about what makes sense, what evokes the right thoughts, and use that word instead. If 'users' works for you, then keep doing that.
[+] [-] viviantan|13 years ago|reply
It seems obvious, but I understand what Dorsey's getting at. I've struggled with finding appropriately specific identifiers, and when in doubt just lumped everyone together as "users."
Context matters. Square happens to be one of those paid services whose categories of "users" are pretty easy to identify and name. Like you guys mentioned in your comments, redefining specific terms for "users" of free services and search engines isn't quite as simple. I would suggest "freeloaders" or "browsers" but that would take us in the wrong direction :)
I'm content being labeled a "user" for now.
[+] [-] dreamdu5t|13 years ago|reply
Kind of interesting that the CEO of Twitter and Square has the time to think and write blog posts about referring to people as "users" or "customers" internally. Must be a tough and time-consuming job.
[+] [-] staunch|13 years ago|reply
Customer makes me think it's about paying for the product.
Users are my friends. Customers are my clients.
[+] [-] erwanl|13 years ago|reply
In a company, the buyer or customer may be a manager but the user the members of his team.
In a consumer product, the buyer or customer may be a middle-aged man but the user his 12 years old daughter.
Words have meanings, and randomly inverting them will only cause more confusion. When you sell a product it's important to know who is the custmomer and who is the user. If they're not the same person they will have different goals and needs, and it is important to understand them.
[+] [-] hawleyal|13 years ago|reply
Youtube has video uploaders, commenters, raters.
Games have players, coaches, referees, bots.
Forums have admins, moderators, posters, subscribers, lurkers.
Torrents have seeders, leechers.
Sure, Amazon has customers mostly, and some advertisers.
New terms are ubiquitous from convention, not from reasoning.
[+] [-] anateus|13 years ago|reply
Calling those people customers may perhaps cause subtle shifts in Twitter's behavior such that it would be more aligned with those people's interests, but it wouldn't be accurate!
[+] [-] schoen|13 years ago|reply
http://contemporary-home-computing.org/turing-complete-user/
which argues that speaking of "users" is a mark of respect for their intelligence and autonomy, and that the computer industry is going astray by failing to speak of them.
[+] [-] SoftwareMaven|13 years ago|reply
Every time I've been responsible for a product, the first thing I've done is make sure we have accurate personas with actual names. Who are the real people using our product? Why are the using it? What makes them happy or sad about it?
I've found that, when presented with good personas, engineering becomes more empathetic for the people using the product, and, as a result, make products that are better for those people (as opposed to better for the engineers, which tends to happen when engineers aren't empathizing with their users).
And I also don't think "users" is a word that needs to be excised from software producer's vocabulary. There are times when you need a word that describes your customers, partners, etc. If you aren't careful, any word you choose there will become too generic.
[+] [-] msg|13 years ago|reply
If you don't consider yourself a servant of your customers, and work to please them, your contempt is going to come out instead. I got tired of being used by Facebook. I don't feel that anyone has my back at Facebook. I moved on.
By contrast there are a few sites that bend over backwards to delight me, their customer, whether or not they charge me money or make money from me. Customer service sets great sites apart from sites not worth my time.
[+] [-] drone|13 years ago|reply
Sure, we could call them "decision-making" customer and "product-using" customer, but semantics driving psychology work the other way around as well : sales is customer-driven, and development and support are user-driven. Same end result is achieved, while using natural language for the target audience.
[+] [-] ftwinnovations|13 years ago|reply
This is subtle, but it actually feels better to me. Building it as "user" wasn't even a thought, but in truth to a player playing a game, it is an odd abstract term in the context.