The "Customer" IS Always Right!

Just today, I stumbled across an article from last July's Library Journal. OK, so I'm not totally caught up on my "professional development" reading. And, the subject of the article is definitely an old saw that many of you would just as soon not see discussed again. But something in the article really riled me, so here goes, anyway:

Brent Wagner, in a BackTalk piece titled "Patron or Customer (and Why)?" (oh yes, this again!), argues pretty strongly against using the term customer to describe our library users. Why? Well, for one reason, he says that in doing so, we are embracing a business model! Egads!

Because he thinks running a library using a business model is a bad idea, I'll give Mr. Wagner the benefit of the doubt for understanding the problem inherent with any attempt to operate a government agency in this way. That is, for-profit businesses and governments do not share common objectives. Businesses exist to make a profit while government agencies exist to provide a specific services to its citizens. this difference in goal-setting leads to very different values. While businesses ultimately care only about increasing profits (yes, they do want happy customers, but why? to increase profits!). Us government folks are supposed to care about outcomes. Does our service make a measurable difference in the quality of life of the intended recipients of our service? Certainly , as custodians of operating funds that come directly out of the pocket of those we serve, we are obligated to strive toward the same level of fiscal efficiency as do for-profit agencies but, with us, extreme fiscal efficiency cannot simply replace a positive outcome for our customers. In fact, we sometimes make decisions that do not lead to the most cost effective choice for the sake of achieving our mission.

And as I said, I'm sure Mr. Wagner understands this important difference between governments and businesses. Whatever else he feels about the word customer, however, I think he reveals a misunderstanding of the role of the civil servant when he says:

"The term customer surrenders stricter standards and suggests that libraries now must 'give 'em what they want,' no matter what they want, even though the customer, at least our customer, is not always right." [emphasis mine]

Huh? The only time the customer isn't right is when they are being abusive to another person in the library, employee or otherwise. Human relationships trump customer relationships every time, after all. But, really, what is the presumption to be made from the statement above? That there actually are times when the item a customer seeks from the library isn't the one they "need"? And we're supposed to make that judgment based on our superior knowledge?

This attitude just kills me! You know what? This argument of semantics, customer versus patron, is truly not the point. Who cares which word we use to refer to the people that visit the library? The bottom line is this: citizens own the library because they've paid for the library with their own taxes. The NCES' Public Libraries in the United States and ALA's Libraries Connect Communities both demonstrate that over 80% of the funds used to operate public libraries in the U.S. come from local sources; that means property taxes! In this sense, our users really are customers, even though all I really want is that users leave the library feeling satisfied and respected! So, while I do have a personal preference for the term customer, and I've only worked in systems where that was the term preferred by the administration, I don't care how you refer to those that visit your library; just make sure they leave knowing you've done everything in your power to give them what they want!