Something from a library video the other day irked me and though it’s a small thing, I wondered if putting my reaction out there might be worthwhile.
In the video, the library director used the term “customers” to refer to people who use her library. I’m predisposed to annoyance over this because for years in corporate employ I have been assigned to work on management initiatives that rebrand something that did not need it in the first place and didn’t change anything afterwards.
Customer strikes me as the wrong term to describe the relationship. I prefer a more narrow interpretation of customer as someone who purchases goods or services. I don’t do that at my library; I financially support services through taxes. There’s a difference. Also, the tax I pay funds library service for residents who are not homeowners as well as library users who live in other towns. Are they customers too, even though they use the library at no financial cost?
The real rub though, as a radical (and appreciative) patron, comes by way of association with “customer” service. Central Massachusetts, like far too many areas of our country, has been over-run by franchise establishments and big box retailers. The majority of my customer relationships exist with organizations and employees robbed of their ability to provide good customer service. As a customer, every week I interact with people who have little or no knowledge of what they are selling, have no authority to mediate a transaction and are mandated to upsell me even after I expressly indicate I’m not interested. It’s a lousy experience.
The service experience at my library, on the other hand, is exemplary. If service is the goal and rebranding is needed, instead of libraries adopting the term customer, I’d suggest the business world adopt the term patron as a model.
I don’t know why libraries debate the whole “customer” versus “patron” debate. When I first heard that libraries called the customers patrons, I thought that was awesome. It is such a revered title. It creates such respect for that person and in turn respect for the organization. Why would anyone every change that?
Working as I do in a library that moved from “patron” to “customer,” I’d like to toss in a few points. The word “patron” to me has always suggested a certain beneficence. Indeed, the first two definitions for “patron” in Webster’s refer not to those who buys goods or use services, but those who are named or honored as special supporters or protectors and those who use their wealth to support an artist or writer.
I could call our “users” whatever I choose, and that would not automatically create respect of the organization. I base that observation on the way in which our frontline staff is treated by some of our patrons/customers/users. When they walk in the door, they arrive with a sense of entitlement which they proceed to demonstrate by swearing at staff, making loud and unreasonable demands, throwing library cards, and generally behaving in a way that most decidedly does not demonstrate respect. They do, in fact, behave the same way they would at Wal-Mart, Best Buy or any other big box you wish to name. Certainly there is nothing about these users that suggests support or protection.
As for the staff being more respectful of “patrons” — I think the use of the word “customer” encourages staff to behave pro-actively, to approach users on the floor, to “upsell” by promoting other library programs and services, to ensure that the user’s needs have been met — generally to apply the kind of customer service they themselves have appreciated in the marketplace. Seems pretty respectful to me.
Call ‘em whatever you will. Just try to avoid “hey, you!”