
Jack Dorsey: Let's Reconsider Our "Users" - hornokplease
http://jacks.tumblr.com/post/33785796042/lets-reconsider-our-users
======
johnrob
'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).

~~~
williamcotton
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.

~~~
dchuk
Explicitly paying people for their usage data will overtly change their usage
habits because they'll be aware of the fact that everything they do will be
sold off to advertisers. A good portion of the value of usage data is that
it's not "tainted" by the fact that users are conscious about the tracking in
the first place.

I guarantee over 99% of Facebook's billion+ users have no idea that's really
how Facebook is making their money. Sure, they might see the ads, but they
don't know how those ads really work.

As for calling users "customers" because their data is being sold, well, no,
that's not an accurate name for them per the definition of "customer":

cus·tom·er/ˈkəstəmər/

Noun:

A person or organization that buys goods or services from a store or other
business.

A person or thing of a specified kind that one has to deal with: "a tough
customer".

The label "customer" implies a conscious action of making a purchase. Twitter
users are not actively purchasing anything, they're just creating usage data
that makes money on the back end.

~~~
williamcotton
People should be aware of the fact that what they do will be sold to
advertisers. I'm not going to go as far as to support legislature that
enforces this awareness, but I wouldn't be surprised if in the next couple of
decades that this idea is thrown around by lawmakers.

I wouldn't be surprised if lawmakers set to make it so everyone had the right
to make sure their information was not sold to advertisers.

I'm personally under the impression that regulation causes more problems than
it solves in the majority of situations so I'm hoping that the industry self-
regulates and companies like Facebook and Twitter allow me to pay for their
services and opt-out of their business of selling my private information to
others.

I'm not really sure why you defined "customer" for me. I never said that
Facebook and Twitter users are currently customers, but that they should be.

It is dishonest to have the business taking place "on the back end" of things
and to purposefully hide such transactions from people.

I also find it arrogant to think that it is advantageous to shield such
financial complexity from people because they don't want to think about it or
won't understand it.

So if Facebook and Twitter want to continue to be dishonest and arrogant
companies, by all means, let them continue, but I think it will be part of
their ultimate demise, either from increased consumer awareness on topics such
as information privacy and digital identity, or from legislation.

------
calpaterson
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".

~~~
SethMurphy
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.

~~~
benatkin
> Since when are start-ups a Democracy?

<http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html>

~~~
SethMurphy
OK, admittedly a little dramatic to make the point that one thing that can
slow down a startup (which should be fast by definition) from their real goal
is involving everyone in every decision. It was in response to a board
meeting, not quite in isolation as was stated.

------
paulrademacher
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.

~~~
zachrose
Ever notice that if you ask for a large at Starbucks, the barista will
confirm: "Venti?"

It wouldn't surprise me if this were a designed response from Starbucks,
encouraging their customers to develop and internalize the Starbucks dialect.

~~~
jes5199
well, a problem that I had when I was a barista (at a different coffee chain,
back in 2001), was that we didn't have three sizes, we had four. So if
somebody asked for a medium, I would get confused and say "well, we have two
mediums", and if someone asked for a large I would have to ask "did you want
the one that would reasonably be called large or did you want the one that is
actually the largest that we have?". Whenever I tried to standardize "small,
medium, large, extra-large" or "tiny, small, medium, large", then always half
of the people would end up the wrong thing and get upset. It was lose-lose.

So now when I go to a cafe I say "I'd like a twelve ounce coffee", so I don't
have to try to translate that through their local notion of whether that's
"small" or "medium" or "tall"

------
gojomo
'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.

~~~
flomo
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.

------
csmeder
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."

------
knieveltech
Heartwarming. I predict in short order the phrase "customer" will take on all
of the negative connotations normally associated with the phrase "user".

~~~
Spellman
Reminds me of this ancedote:
[http://www.ted.com/talks/mark_forsyth_what_s_a_snollygoster_...](http://www.ted.com/talks/mark_forsyth_what_s_a_snollygoster_a_short_lesson_in_political_speak.html)

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.

------
anon808
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.

<http://37signals.com/01.html>

. . . just as relevant in this bullshit bubble as it was in the last.

~~~
recuter
It sounds like you are in agreement with OP.

~~~
kristianc
It is a little surprising to see something voted to the top that isn't a
criticism of the OP, but there's not much to argue with in the email.

------
waterlesscloud
"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.

------
KSierra
"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.

------
saraid216
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.

------
viviantan
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 :)

I'm content being labeled a "user" for now.

------
dreamdu5t
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.

------
staunch
User makes me think it's _about_ using the product.

Customer makes me think it's about _paying_ for the product.

Users are my friends. Customers are my clients.

------
erwanl
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.

~~~
hawleyal
Most definitely.

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
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!

------
schoen
It's funny to see this on the same day as Olia Lialina's article "Turing
Complete User"

<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
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.

------
msg
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.

------
drone
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.

------
ftwinnovations
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.

------
zmmmmm
I thought that it was odd that he dislikes "user" because it is impersonal (he
wouldn't call his mom one), but then he chose replacements that are nearly as
impersonal (I'm sure he wouldn't call his mom a buyer or a seller either).
"Customer" is going to get very confusing if they start using it for people
who aren't actually paying for anything. So while I see his point, I don't
think he's improved the situation.

------
ErrantX
Recently, in building apps, I've changed how I do accounts. Previously
everyone was a "user" and permissions got managed by ACL (yes, yes, I know not
the best security model..).

Now I give each type of user their own model. So... "customer", "employee",
"admin" for example.

This is interesting because when you write code it is instantly apparent who
is the focus of an action. It also helps model how the accounts interact with
each other.

------
h2s
I like the sentiment, but I'm not a fan of linguistic prescriptivism. Words
mean what they mean, not what the dictionary says they mean.

------
b1daly
Personally I'm thrilled when people use my product. I've never thought of the
term user having a negative connotation when referring to software users. Is
that really a vestige of hacker culture?

Dorsey's post gives me an uneasy feeling. Because everyone receiving the memo
knows on some level that it's BS. It's couched in the terms of showing respect
for users as people. But the subtext is simply that we need to act as if we
respect the people using our product because they provide money.

The whole exalting of the customer in modern marketing speak is emblematic of
a lack of respect for people as fellow human beings. It's kind of a perversion
of the cliche "the customer is always right. Obviously the customer is not
always right, that's why the frickin' expression exists! It's an
acknowledgment of the asymmetry that exists in buyer/seller transactions.
You're not supposed to believe it, just act like you do.

------
qdog
I'm a user, have been since 1993, when they handed me that first hit of email
username/password.

Never gonna stop.

------
jfarmer
At both Everlane (<http://everlane.com>) and Dev Bootcamp
(<http://devbootcamp.com>) we made a conscious decision early on not to call
our customers "users."

It's a surprisingly hard habit to break, but it's important. Being specific
clarifies your priorities and adds a level of responsibility.

At DBC, our students are our customers, for example. Treating them like
customers acknowledges that they're paying us a lot of money to change their
lives. When you're saying "student" and "customer" all day it's easier to
focus on what the real problems are.

------
joneil
I don't think it's a big issue. I agree with this blog post from 2004:

> We think "users" is exactly the right word. It makes the USER the important
> thing. The one who cares about USEability and USEfullness, two words we
> really like. We don't care if we make fans. We aren't even motivated to
> create customers. We believe that if you can do things in such a way that
> you help people become passionate users, the rest takes care of itself.

[http://headrush.typepad.com/creating_passionate_users/2004/1...](http://headrush.typepad.com/creating_passionate_users/2004/12/why_we_love_use.html)

------
tobr
No, "user" is a great word if you're talking about what it's like to use the
product, and how to improve the experience of using it. A word like "buyer" or
"seller" might be better in some cases, but risk being to narrow, because a
seller for instance will occasionally have other goals in the app then just
doing a sale.

Similarly, "user" is probably not a great word when you're talking about
business, because your customers do more than just use the app.

I don't mind being both a user and a customer and an individual, depending on
who's talking about me in what context.

------
notatoad
This almost seems like a dismissal of your users. As he says, square has two
types of user: buyer and seller. Only the seller is really square's customer,
by the traditional definition of that word. By dropping the term user, and
only talking about customers, it seems like the buyer might end up getting
neglected.

When your boss asks you a question like "how does this impact the customer",
you tend to only think about the people who pay you money, not the other
strange definitions of customer that jack might have invented.

------
rocky1138
I've felt this way about being called a "consumer" for a long time and have
avoided businesses that label me as such. I say this is a good call.

------
padobson
I've always felt the term was neutral. You could put a user on a pedestal, or
condescend to them.

In any case, I don't think using "customer" as a replacement is necessarily
enlightened or inspired. There's got to be a more creative term.

But then, that might just give rise to another esoteric buzzword, and I'd
rather not have that either.

I'm just going to stick with "user".

------
tsieling
Big +1. Users as a term radically homogenizes people you're supposed to be
building for. I came to the same conclusion a couple years ago:
<http://corvusconsulting.ca/2010/08/no-more-users/>

------
kareemm
I've stopped calling my customers "users" since I heard Jeff Veen say, back at
an Adaptive Path seminar in 2004, "there are only two businesses that call its
customers 'users'."

It pithily drove the point home for me: I had never been designing for users,
but people.

~~~
thisisblurry
What were those two businesses?

~~~
saraid216
Drug-dealing and software.

~~~
rjknight
[http://jensontaylor.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/similarities-
betw...](http://jensontaylor.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/similarities-between-
software.html)

------
pud
On the social network I run, I call them members. I think it's a lot nicer
than users. I also sometimes refer to them as musicians (since it's a site for
musicians).

If I called them customers, they'd think I were trying to sell them
something... which I'm not.

------
DigitalSea
Before I go any further, I would like to make it known I really like Jack
Dorsey as a person and entrepreneur. He is a smart visionary who possess's the
same kind of entrepreneurial spirit that many of us here possess as well but
this is one of the silliest things I have ever read.

Why does it matter what you call the people that use your services? They are
users of the service. You are providing a service for users. For example: John
Doe goes to a store and they use Square, John pays for his product via the
merchant using Square — John is a customer, the retailer is a user of the
Square service. It's not like John (the customer) is paying Square directly
just for the privilege of being able to pay for his particular item via a
credit card.

The word users works, lets not over-think this. As long as you are providing
exceptional services and exceptional support you could call us cretins for all
I care.

------
xal
Pick something that describes the activity. At Shopify we refer to our users
as Merchants. They have their own Customers. We also have Partners with
partner accounts which further branch into Affiliates, Designers, Developers.

------
fotoblur
I think it's completely contextual. We call our users 'members' at Fotoblur,
since we're a community. When I was in college working as a waiter one
restaurant insisted we never call customers 'customers' but 'guests.'

------
liotier
Some people are both customer and user. Some are only one of those. There is a
database modeling pattern for that. And then there is an infinity of roles -
customer and user are just two of those.

------
SethMurphy
Did the term user ever exist in this context before? Thinking about it it
seems right when talking inside baseball, but not when writing copy for your
business.

------
teaneedz
Whether it's _customer_ or _user_ , the experience better rock! Less time on
semantics and more on great products that _people_ want to use.

------
yardie
At least he isn't calling their users "consumers". Dammit I hate that word and
whichever MBA put it into the standard lexicon.

------
kennywinker
> If I ever say the word “user” again, _immediately charge me $140._

$140... 140 characters. Subtle jab at Twitter?

~~~
randlet
He created Twitter, so I don't think it was either subtle or a jab.

~~~
kennywinker
I was under some sort of vague impression that he was estranged from twitter.
Googling seems to indicate that was wrong.

So not "subtle jab", rather "pseudo-subtle nod".

------
hawleyal
One customer could have multiple users.

Agents might be more accurate.

Why are we talking about this?

#biggerproblems

~~~
jamesmiller5
It's a reflection on how software developers can inadvertently distance
themselves from the ones who care the most about their software most, their
customers.

The terminology and historical use of the word 'user' doesn't give enough
weight to the fact that their 'users' are actually customers. Referring to
their customers properly shows more respect for their customers while setting
the expectations from their developers when building services.

~~~
hawleyal
Customers is just one small category of users.

Youtube has video uploaders, commenters, raters.

Games have players, coaches, referees, bots.

Forums have admins, moderators, posters, subscribers, lurkers.

Torrents have seeders, leechers.

None of these are customers.

Sure, Amazon has customers mostly, and some advertisers.

I would say it's not a reflection of distance of software developers, but more
an attempt by developers to create a new all-encompassing term which describes
all of these things. People, organizations, machines. More than one per real
life unit.

------
ezpassmac
This is the reason Jack is the modern day Steve Jobs.

------
petegrif
#bindersofusers

------
papsosouid
>“Why do you all call your customers ‘users’?”

We don't, we call our users "users". They are the product we are selling to
our customers. We call our customers "customers". Why is he taking such a
stupid question as a call to change the way he thinks instead of just
answering it?

>No one wants to be thought of as a “user”

Excuse me? I am perfectly content with being thought of as a user of site X
when I am a user of site X. I am not a customer of google's, I am a user of
their search engine. I am not a customer of HNs, I am a user. If you don't
care about your users, then fix that problem, don't try to pretend the word is
the problem.

~~~
sudonim
@Jack's article was in the context of Square. At Square, the merchants are the
customers, and the merchant's customers are probably classified as the users.
In that context, referring to merchants as users might be less precise.

When talking about twitter, I'm absolutely not their customer. I'm their user,
and totally agree with your assessment.

One thing absent from @jack's article was a definition of customer:

cus·tom·er/ˈkəstəmər/ Noun: A person or organization that buys goods or
services from a store or other business.

~~~
orourkek
> the merchant's customers are probably classified as the users.

I believe his subdivision of "customers" into "sellers" and "buyers" was to
solve that issue - "sellers" are the merchants, and "buyers" and the sellers'
customers. It all makes sense to me, but you're right - only in a context
where you actually have customers

