Custo-consum-user-people

Here we go again.  Can't we just call people PEOPLE?  This time it's Josh Bernoff of Forrester.  He says:

"When I started in the business twenty-mumble years ago, writing software manuals, people who used software were unusual (and had to be masochists). We spent a lot of time talking about users. The word user was helpful -- it helped us to keep in mind that there was a poor slob on the other end of what we were building.

Those times are long gone. We know users are important now. Disappoint them and you lose. So why do we still have to call them "users," which puts the emphasis on the technology they are using?

Yes, I know "users are people, too." But you know what? All people are users now! (With nearly 80% Net penetration in the US this is pretty close to true.) Users put up with computers. People just do stuff.

Nobody talks about users of dishwashers, or users of retail stores, or users of telephones. So why are we talking about "users" of computers, browsers, and software?"

I'm all for "humanizing the experience"—but guess what?  Sometimes labels help us to design better solutions, products and experiences for the PEOPLE who we serve who USE the stuff we develop for them.  USERS.  Some related thoughts below:

Originally posted on July 2006
When is a person more than just a person?  If you want to design for people, don’t be afraid to “label” them.  When used correctly, labels clarify and add context.  They tell us what is important and what takes priority.  An individual balancing their checkbook online is USING technology to complete a task—so they can do other things that are important (like putting the kids to bed).  Someone listening to a podcast is part of an AUDIENCE consisting of likeminded people who share a common interest. 

A person who decides to create their own online Ad after seeing what others have done is an active PARTICIPANT.  Someone who engages in the social media network is part of a larger COMMUNITY.  People who spend their money online or in the real world are CUSTOMERS.  And when we partake in an economy where goods and services are bought, sold and exchanged then we become CONSUMERS—in addition to PEOPLE.

Labels help.  Labels help us remember what’s important.  Designing an interface that is useful and usable makes for a happy user.  Happy users make happy people.  And happy people tell good stories about your brand to others.

Here we go again.  Can't we just call people PEOPLE?  This time it's Josh Bernoff of Forrester.  He says:

"When I started in the business twenty-mumble years ago, writing software manuals, people who used software were unusual (and had to be masochists). We spent a lot of time talking about users. The word user was helpful -- it helped us to keep in mind that there was a poor slob on the other end of what we were building.

Those times are long gone. We know users are important now. Disappoint them and you lose. So why do we still have to call them "users," which puts the emphasis on the technology they are using?

Yes, I know "users are people, too." But you know what? All people are users now! (With nearly 80% Net penetration in the US this is pretty close to true.) Users put up with computers. People just do stuff.

Nobody talks about users of dishwashers, or users of retail stores, or users of telephones. So why are we talking about "users" of computers, browsers, and software?"

I'm all for "humanizing the experience"—but guess what?  Sometimes labels help us to design better solutions, products and experiences for the PEOPLE who we serve who USE the stuff we develop for them.  USERS.  Some related thoughts below:

Originally posted on July 2006
When is a person more than just a person?  If you want to design for people, don’t be afraid to “label” them.  When used correctly, labels clarify and add context.  They tell us what is important and what takes priority.  An individual balancing their checkbook online is USING technology to complete a task—so they can do other things that are important (like putting the kids to bed).  Someone listening to a podcast is part of an AUDIENCE consisting of likeminded people who share a common interest. 

A person who decides to create their own online Ad after seeing what others have done is an active PARTICIPANT.  Someone who engages in the social media network is part of a larger COMMUNITY.  People who spend their money online or in the real world are CUSTOMERS.  And when we partake in an economy where goods and services are bought, sold and exchanged then we become CONSUMERS—in addition to PEOPLE.

Labels help.  Labels help us remember what’s important.  Designing an interface that is useful and usable makes for a happy user.  Happy users make happy people.  And happy people tell good stories about your brand to others.

Comments

[Cam Beck]

Is this a distinction without a difference? All users are people. Obviously we're not talking about nonusers, right?

When in discussion about a website, someone might bring up that "people don't like x," to which someone else might reply, "but users do." Did we shift meaning at all when we changed words?

Not usually. In the context of most discussions we have about the sites we build, "users" and "people" are interchangeable. In either case, we're talking about our audience. But the context is important.

I guess I never understood why people get upset when others in the industry call those who use websites "users." It seems there are many other more worthwhile things to get upset about. Why quibble over this?

[DA]

"Not usually. In the context of most discussions we have about the sites we build, "users" and "people" are interchangeable. In either case, we're talking about our audience. But the context is important."

I would agree with this—and I think the differences are subtle, but meaningful. Like referring to someone who is listening to a podcast as part of an audience—since at the moment they may not be using anything.

So yes, the terms matter in context and can also be interchangeable—but to your last point which I feel is the most important, why quibble over the validity of these terms. There are folks out there who feel the word user has lost meaning and dehumanizes PEOPLE. So we should stop using the term.

I don't get it. Calling everyone "people" doesn't add context or help us focus on what's really important to the person at that particular point in time.

in short, I guess what I'm saying is—let us use the labels as best we can vs. dictating that we shouldn't call people users, participants, consumers yadda yadda...

[Senia.com Positive Psychology Coaching]

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!

[Daria R. Rasmussen]

Labels help us control the world and put the line between what's "in our field", what's outside. I can see the point of using labels as they keep you focused and steer the thinking - users, someone who uses things, consumer - someone who consumes things. It is one-dimentional, as user is also human, consumer and mother and nurse, etc. all those things have infleunce on her perception of reality and needs. User is just one of hundreds of roles we are playing in everydaylife. As such labels are OK, they are very good tools that make working/thinking process easier but we can't forget about human side of users and all the consequences following.

[DA]

Daria,

Agreed--that's why in the visual the "person" is in the middle. Never forget we are designing for people, but to your point people can also be teachers, nurses, mothers, and even users.

[Lewis Green]

David,

In context (when used by those of us who provide services) labels not only are useful but necessary. Just imagine a meeting of minds where everyone that we serve is called a "person." How would we know who were users, potential users, past users, buyers, clients, potential clients, target audience.... Well, you get the picture.

Labels move the conversation forward.

[Josh Bernoff]

David -- I've often found your analysis on these topics thoughtful.

It's also been my experience that calling someone a "user" is what happens just before you exploit them, or hit them with not completely baked technology.

In my post I was mostly talking about how I'm writing in the book Charlene Li and I are working on (Groundswell) -- which is aimed at general business people -- just the people who need to think about audiences, not just "users."

Since then I've found myself in the middle of this debate (mostly since I asked people to take the pledge to leave "user" behind, and the "user" advocates came out in force in my blog comments).

Your diagram makes sense, but only once you get people to really believe in the person in the middle!

[gabby]

Well, there's the oft-repeated Tufte-ism about how the only industries that refer to their customers as 'users' are software makers and drug dealers. Insert obligatory high-hat here and props for cleverness but cleverness does not solve the problem.

I hate the debate--it's just the same old same old, distracting us from the all important need to solve problems and make people's lives easier. How can we get out of the customer's way until we get out of our own?

Heads out of navels, people--we've got work to do!

[DA]

Josh. I hear you. It has to start with people and we don't always do this. It's just my POV that removing descriptive labels from our vernacular is not the answer. Often times I am most encouraged to hear a marketer say "that's not user-friendly" because at least it acknowledges the desire to make the experience better fro the person on the other end of the screen. Thanks for commenting.

Gabby, I know this "debate" is tiresome as it comes up often but you know me--Im a sucker for "conversation" :-)

[Adam]

David,

Join the Facebook Group if you ever get around to signing up!

Stop Calling Me A Consumer.
http://tinyurl.com/ypn849

I posted a link to this article there.

To be clear, I'm fine with context-specific labeling, and the term user, just not the term consumer.

[Zeroinfluencer]

Not people. Not users. Not consumers. But actors (and actresses, if you will).

Software and systems have, are and will always be based upon roles that are acted out by the participant.

Some actors are better than others because they empathise with context. Method or 'Classic' modes of acting further only the simulation of the system's affordance.

As designers, planners or respected meddlers, we set the stage, produce the scripts and invite the audience to experience the branded performance.

The role in freedom is no different within a blog, a store or a between the leaves of deadwood media; it's the richness, or lack of narractive that justifies a need to define the participant as anything other than actor. (or actress..)

[DA]

@zeroinfluencer my parents own a barber shop (and speaking of performances my dad puts on a pretty good show). They call the people who come to get their hair cut-- customers. Should I tell them to start calling them actors?

:)

PS, on that note I've learned a lot from my parents in this area. While they referred to customers as such when speaking to each other, they always addressed their customers on a first name basis and interacted with each one in a different fashion. You could say the experience was personalized--slightly different for each person sitting in the chair. Talk about a great user experience...

[Mike Sansone]

Love the graphic, agree with most of the thought process.

I'm not so sure that placing a label is the precursor to exploitation (see Josh's comment above), but - as you say - a way to identify.

Conversations like these are why I love blogs. And I'm glad you're a blogger:-)