4 ms·

I’m not sure I even agree with this weaker framing of “the customer is always right.” I don’t think a barber should be expected to give any conceivable hair cut

I’m not sure I even agree with this weaker framing of “the customer is always right.” I don’t think a barber should be expected to give any conceivable hair cut the customer can come up with. I think it’s very reasonable for a barber to feel uncomfortable with their skill level to provide a certain hair cut, or even to think a certain hair cut is unreasonably weird. In my view, the barber is entitled to be proud of the service they provide, and to refuse to provide service outside that scope.

josephg 4y ago
> I don’t think a barber should be expected to give any conceivable hair cut the customer can come up with. I think I agree with both statements. Customers can be "right" in matters of taste - they are welcome to prefer one wine over another. But the service provider is also welcome to refuse to cater to a customer's taste; and refuse to stock a certain brand of wine for ethical reasons or whatever. A Thai resteraunt might have the equipment and ingredients necessary to make a hamburger; but they're still welcome to say no to a customer who asks for one. If they get outcompeted in the long run by a burger shop down the road, so be it. As I understand it, Apple refuses to have any adult content in their app store because they don't want to sell adult content. I think they should be welcome to make that choice, but I also find it a compelling argument to open phones up to alternate app stores.
- thaumasiotes 4y ago
  > As I understand it, Apple refuses to have any adult content in their app store because they don't want to sell adult content. They don't refuse to have adult content in the app store. They only refuse to have unpopular adult content. Twitter and reddit have been there forever.
  - xnyan 4y ago
    Let me start by saying that I think Apple does have a long history of being up their own ass regarding "frivolous" uses of their products, aka video games and porn. Apple has no issue with people viewing or making adult content with their platform, their objection is selling it. An iOS device is capable of viewing any and all adult content on the internet via Apple's own web browser and other Apple software. Apple does not (as far as I know) ban applications that could present adult content, but rather those who's main purpose is to present adult content. I think the reasons apple bans porn apps is 1) They think it's trashy/beneath Apple to sell applications that are primarily horny/porn and 2) banks make it expensive or impossible to move sex industry profits.
    - thaumasiotes 4y ago
      > Apple does not (as far as I know) ban applications that could present adult content, but rather those who's main purpose is to present adult content. This doesn't support the idea that their objection is to selling the material. It's an unrelated concern. It also suggests that Apple would be fine selling e.g. HuniePop, which seems unlikely.
      - xnyan 4y ago
        >This doesn't support the idea that their objection is to selling the material. It's an unrelated concern. Does Apple restrict adult content in anything besides the various marketplaces it owns (applications, media, advertisements)?
        thaumasiotes 4y ago
        Apple restricts adult content regardless of whether that content is being sold or not.
  - watwut 4y ago
    Adult content is euphemism for porn. It does not mean "content targeted at adults" in general.
    - thaumasiotes 4y ago
      I know that. Were you trying to make a point?
- atoav 4y ago
  While I think your first examples are fine, I think whether it is okay that a service provider forces their decisions on someone is also a matter of size and scope. E.g. some food chain deciding not to sell a certain type of wine (for ethical, or totally selfish reasons) has no huge impact on the rights of others, because there are many other food chains and even if there were not drinking a certain wine. The bigger the company and the more it's services resemble the public square the less a company should be able to just decide freely what people are able to see.
  - josephg 4y ago
    > The bigger the company and the more it's services resemble the public square the less a company should be able to just decide freely what people are able to see. I absolutely agree. This is why I call out Apple. Either they're a marketplace that should resemble the public square (and thus include adult content in their app store). Or they're one company amongst many competing for customers - in which case the iPhone should allow other app stores. I don't think they can play it both ways. Visa and Mastercard are also guilty of this. They often make it very difficult for adult performers to get paid with their policies. If they're like the public square for money, then they should allow any customer within the bounds of the law. If they're a businesses competing, then we need more competition. POS terminals should be extensible and able to support newcomers to the payment space to allow for more competition.
  - Akronymus 4y ago
    > While I think your first examples are fine, I think whether it is okay that a service provider forces their decisions on someone is also a matter of size and scope. I think certain services, like custom orders, should always be able to be refused (I don't agree with putting message x on it), while service in general should be VERY hard to be refused. (Stuff like being banned from a store for shoplifting is obviously one of the things that should allow general service to be refused) IMO stores/marketplace that place themselves as "publishers" aka, vetting their products and such should have the right/obligation to refuse carrying products they don't want. But also be responsible for products they DO carry. While marketplaces where essentially anyone can sell on, like ebay, should indeed be treated like the public square.
- Georgelemental 4y ago
  In your examples, the customer remains always right. People who want what the business is unwilling to provide, simply aren't customers of the business after all.
satvikpendem 4y ago
> In my view, the barber is entitled to be proud of the service they provide, and to refuse to provide service outside that scope. That is true and I don't think that is really what the phrase is saying either. The way I understood it is that at a macroeconomic scale, companies must cater to customers or be left behind by competitors who do. This barber may not cater to a specific haircut, but if many customers want such a haircut (perhaps due to some trend), then barbers who refuse to have that haircut will be left behind (financially, at least) by those who cater to such a haircut. So, both statements can be true, it's just operating on different economic scales, one at the micro, the other at the macro.
gizmo686 4y ago
I always viewed "the customer is always right (in matters of taste)" to be a statement on corporate policy. If you are a self employed batber, then go ahead and decide what you are comfortable doing. However, if you are a barber shop with a dozen barbers, you need to decide on a policy. One approach is to have a list of approved styles, from which customers must pick, or take their bussiness elsewhere. The other, "customer is alway right" approach would be to allow your barbers to go off menu. Both are reasonable policies with pros and cons; but at a certain scale, you need a consistent policy.
Dylan16807 4y ago
If they're not confident in their ability to do it, that's not calling the customer wrong. So that only leaves "too weird to want to do", which does seem like needlessly bad service.
slyall 4y ago
A similar thing might be "well done" steaks. While somewhere between 10% and 30% of people like well-done steak this choice is mocked in articles, conversation, and internet discourse. It is discouraged (and sometimes refused) at some restaurants. Personally I grew up eating steak well done. But these days I never go to steak restaurants and I've not eaten steak in 10+ years.
- tshaddox 4y ago
  I’m not an expert and I certainly wouldn’t mock someone for liking well-done steak, but my impression was that it’s discouraged for certain kinds of steak, namely ones that cost more because of qualities that won’t be enjoyed when cooking it to well-done.

josephg 4y ago

> I don’t think a barber should be expected to give any conceivable hair cut the customer can come up with. I think I agree with both statements. Customers can be "right" in matters of taste - they are welcome to prefer one wine over another. But the service provider is also welcome to refuse to cater to a customer's taste; and refuse to stock a certain brand of wine for ethical reasons or whatever. A Thai resteraunt might have the equipment and ingredients necessary to make a hamburger; but they're still welcome to say no to a customer who asks for one. If they get outcompeted in the long run by a burger shop down the road, so be it. As I understand it, Apple refuses to have any adult content in their app store because they don't want to sell adult content. I think they should be welcome to make that choice, but I also find it a compelling argument to open phones up to alternate app stores.

thaumasiotes 4y ago
> As I understand it, Apple refuses to have any adult content in their app store because they don't want to sell adult content. They don't refuse to have adult content in the app store. They only refuse to have unpopular adult content. Twitter and reddit have been there forever.
- xnyan 4y ago
  Let me start by saying that I think Apple does have a long history of being up their own ass regarding "frivolous" uses of their products, aka video games and porn. Apple has no issue with people viewing or making adult content with their platform, their objection is selling it. An iOS device is capable of viewing any and all adult content on the internet via Apple's own web browser and other Apple software. Apple does not (as far as I know) ban applications that could present adult content, but rather those who's main purpose is to present adult content. I think the reasons apple bans porn apps is 1) They think it's trashy/beneath Apple to sell applications that are primarily horny/porn and 2) banks make it expensive or impossible to move sex industry profits.
  - thaumasiotes 4y ago
    > Apple does not (as far as I know) ban applications that could present adult content, but rather those who's main purpose is to present adult content. This doesn't support the idea that their objection is to selling the material. It's an unrelated concern. It also suggests that Apple would be fine selling e.g. HuniePop, which seems unlikely.
    - xnyan 4y ago
      >This doesn't support the idea that their objection is to selling the material. It's an unrelated concern. Does Apple restrict adult content in anything besides the various marketplaces it owns (applications, media, advertisements)?
      - thaumasiotes 4y ago
        Apple restricts adult content regardless of whether that content is being sold or not.
- watwut 4y ago
  Adult content is euphemism for porn. It does not mean "content targeted at adults" in general.
  - thaumasiotes 4y ago
    I know that. Were you trying to make a point?
atoav 4y ago
While I think your first examples are fine, I think whether it is okay that a service provider forces their decisions on someone is also a matter of size and scope. E.g. some food chain deciding not to sell a certain type of wine (for ethical, or totally selfish reasons) has no huge impact on the rights of others, because there are many other food chains and even if there were not drinking a certain wine. The bigger the company and the more it's services resemble the public square the less a company should be able to just decide freely what people are able to see.
- josephg 4y ago
  > The bigger the company and the more it's services resemble the public square the less a company should be able to just decide freely what people are able to see. I absolutely agree. This is why I call out Apple. Either they're a marketplace that should resemble the public square (and thus include adult content in their app store). Or they're one company amongst many competing for customers - in which case the iPhone should allow other app stores. I don't think they can play it both ways. Visa and Mastercard are also guilty of this. They often make it very difficult for adult performers to get paid with their policies. If they're like the public square for money, then they should allow any customer within the bounds of the law. If they're a businesses competing, then we need more competition. POS terminals should be extensible and able to support newcomers to the payment space to allow for more competition.
- Akronymus 4y ago
  > While I think your first examples are fine, I think whether it is okay that a service provider forces their decisions on someone is also a matter of size and scope. I think certain services, like custom orders, should always be able to be refused (I don't agree with putting message x on it), while service in general should be VERY hard to be refused. (Stuff like being banned from a store for shoplifting is obviously one of the things that should allow general service to be refused) IMO stores/marketplace that place themselves as "publishers" aka, vetting their products and such should have the right/obligation to refuse carrying products they don't want. But also be responsible for products they DO carry. While marketplaces where essentially anyone can sell on, like ebay, should indeed be treated like the public square.
Georgelemental 4y ago
In your examples, the customer remains always right. People who want what the business is unwilling to provide, simply aren't customers of the business after all.

satvikpendem 4y ago

> In my view, the barber is entitled to be proud of the service they provide, and to refuse to provide service outside that scope. That is true and I don't think that is really what the phrase is saying either. The way I understood it is that at a macroeconomic scale, companies must cater to customers or be left behind by competitors who do. This barber may not cater to a specific haircut, but if many customers want such a haircut (perhaps due to some trend), then barbers who refuse to have that haircut will be left behind (financially, at least) by those who cater to such a haircut. So, both statements can be true, it's just operating on different economic scales, one at the micro, the other at the macro.

gizmo686 4y ago

I always viewed "the customer is always right (in matters of taste)" to be a statement on corporate policy. If you are a self employed batber, then go ahead and decide what you are comfortable doing. However, if you are a barber shop with a dozen barbers, you need to decide on a policy. One approach is to have a list of approved styles, from which customers must pick, or take their bussiness elsewhere. The other, "customer is alway right" approach would be to allow your barbers to go off menu. Both are reasonable policies with pros and cons; but at a certain scale, you need a consistent policy.

Dylan16807 4y ago

If they're not confident in their ability to do it, that's not calling the customer wrong. So that only leaves "too weird to want to do", which does seem like needlessly bad service.

slyall 4y ago

A similar thing might be "well done" steaks. While somewhere between 10% and 30% of people like well-done steak this choice is mocked in articles, conversation, and internet discourse. It is discouraged (and sometimes refused) at some restaurants. Personally I grew up eating steak well done. But these days I never go to steak restaurants and I've not eaten steak in 10+ years.

tshaddox 4y ago
I’m not an expert and I certainly wouldn’t mock someone for liking well-done steak, but my impression was that it’s discouraged for certain kinds of steak, namely ones that cost more because of qualities that won’t be enjoyed when cooking it to well-done.