4 ms·

I think this is critical too and the author is on point with the same concept. I just go back to a more old-fashioned application of the terminology. There is

I think this is critical too and the author is on point with the same concept. I just go back to a more old-fashioned application of the terminology. There is a similarity between a private practice of a single physician, or an individual attorney, whether or not they may operate single-handedly or employ an administrator or staff like nurse or paralegal. OTOH you've got major hospitals and large law partnerships. But these are "industries" which for centuries it was recognized as unethical to persuasively advertise or use any type of pressurized sales tactics. Just because advertising these things has been legal for decades now, it remains to be seen if that was actually the wisest aproach. For one thing patients and injury victims are no longer just the treatment subjects but now financial commodities in addition. Well back then the attorneys always had clients who were expected to engage them purely based on reputation and word-of-mouth, doctors too except they just called them patients as always. There would seem to be stronger incentive for achieving better reputation when persuasive approaches are recognized as unethical. In business "clients" were the ones that came to you, "customers" were the ones that needed a little sales pitch. Now an engineering office, or even a pure sales office, can operate along the same business model. Where the paying client who comes to you based on reputation & word-of-mouth because of what you have to offer is your real bread & butter. This must seriously project value to the payer, form a good foundation, and it will capture those that would run the other way at the hint of persuasiveness or upselling of any kind. So for terminology to me the "client" is nothing like the familiar concept in computer science, it is further from being like a "user", and instead a notch above the valued "customer" who is one that needs to be persuaded a bit to come along, sometimes continuously. The customer gets teated like they are always right, even when it's not true, and the traditional clients end up with an even better feeling. For the entire experience all must feel like they are getting their money's worth in a more personalized way than a general business "customer" would expect. Nothing could be warmer or fuzzier. Having more familiarity with each client then will lead to those among them who occasionally would not only respond to a growth marketing effort, but would be eager to participate just to see you grow to serve them better and more extensively. This is probably not something you want to subject all your clients to. Though it is possible to base many businesses on a marketing strategy for their bread & butter, alternatively it might be better to base it on something unique to offer. So future marketing effort offers more of a bonanza potential rather than just a baseline income stream.

AdieuToLogic 4y ago
The lovely thing about English is all the nuance words we use can have :-). > Well back then the attorneys always had clients who were expected to engage them purely based on reputation and word-of-mouth ... This is a crucial observation IMHO. > In business "clients" were the ones that came to you, "customers" were the ones that needed a little sales pitch. And this is where we diverge in our use of "clients" and "customers" in a business context. My use of "customers" is not in a retail type of context, where convincing is often needed, but is instead in a service one. Perhaps the author's phrasing of: > A client implies that the consultant is superior, while customer suggests that the consultant is beholden. Is a bit too strong. What if, instead, the two were categorized as; - A client implies that the consultant (doctor, lawyer, engineer, etc.) is sought out by someone who will do what the consultant tells them to do due to reputation and/or word-of-mouth. - A customer suggests that the consultant (doctor, lawyer, engineer, etc.) is sought out by someone who needs their skills and expects the consultant to work with them to achieve their goals. To me, the former cedes control to the consultant. This is not always a bad thing, BTW, as for example many people will recommend; "listen to your lawyer, they know the law and courts better than you." The latter conveys to me more of a collaborative interaction, where the consultant and customer are each reminded that what the consultant offers are the skills the customer requires to reach their goals. And, of course, what the customer offers is the ability to express to the consultant, with both vision and remuneration, what they seek.

AdieuToLogic 4y ago

The lovely thing about English is all the nuance words we use can have :-). > Well back then the attorneys always had clients who were expected to engage them purely based on reputation and word-of-mouth ... This is a crucial observation IMHO. > In business "clients" were the ones that came to you, "customers" were the ones that needed a little sales pitch. And this is where we diverge in our use of "clients" and "customers" in a business context. My use of "customers" is not in a retail type of context, where convincing is often needed, but is instead in a service one. Perhaps the author's phrasing of: > A client implies that the consultant is superior, while customer suggests that the consultant is beholden. Is a bit too strong. What if, instead, the two were categorized as; - A client implies that the consultant (doctor, lawyer, engineer, etc.) is sought out by someone who will do what the consultant tells them to do due to reputation and/or word-of-mouth. - A customer suggests that the consultant (doctor, lawyer, engineer, etc.) is sought out by someone who needs their skills and expects the consultant to work with them to achieve their goals. To me, the former cedes control to the consultant. This is not always a bad thing, BTW, as for example many people will recommend; "listen to your lawyer, they know the law and courts better than you." The latter conveys to me more of a collaborative interaction, where the consultant and customer are each reminded that what the consultant offers are the skills the customer requires to reach their goals. And, of course, what the customer offers is the ability to express to the consultant, with both vision and remuneration, what they seek.