3 ms·

While I'm not sure who's side I'm on here yet, it struck me that it is extremely hard to define a Google "customer". I assume one has to pay monies to a compan

by junto 12y ago

While I'm not sure who's side I'm on here yet, it struck me that it is extremely hard to define a Google "customer". I assume one has to pay monies to a company to make themselves a customer. I doubt even 2% of Google users actually pay.

freehunter 12y ago
If we are setting the pragmatic definition of customer, then yeah I would follow the old adage of "if you're not paying for it, you're not the customer". If we are setting a legal definition, I would rather see customer be defined as anyone who uses the product as it is advertised to them. That is, if Gmail is offered to me as being free, I am a customer even if I don't pay. You advertised it as free. If you're forced to do support, set tiers of support based on the tiers of your plan. Free users get basic support with a 5-7 day SLA. Paid users get far better. However, if it's advertised to me as being $50 and I am using it for free, I'm not a customer. I'm not using it as advertised. Would this change the business model of a lot of start ups? You bet it would. But it would change it for the better in the customer's eyes. Maybe the "free tier" becomes the free trial, time-limited. Maybe paid users will no longer subsidize the paid users. Maybe companies will think through their business model a little more and not offer free service for just long enough to get embedded in someone's life then realize they have to shut down for lack of money. I would love to see a shift from "user" to "customer". You don't have 200,000 users if they're not paying you. You have 200,000 customers and 0 profit.
trias 12y ago
The law in question is not intended regulate business-customer-relations, but is also for business-business of business-press-relation or any other form of contact. If you operate a business in germany and have a website you have to have an "impressum". Even most personal sites put up an "impressum" even if they are not required too, just because everyone is scared of the "impressumspflicht".
- junto 12y ago
  Interesting. Thanks for sharing that.

by junto 12y ago

freehunter 12y ago

If we are setting the pragmatic definition of customer, then yeah I would follow the old adage of "if you're not paying for it, you're not the customer". If we are setting a legal definition, I would rather see customer be defined as anyone who uses the product as it is advertised to them. That is, if Gmail is offered to me as being free, I am a customer even if I don't pay. You advertised it as free. If you're forced to do support, set tiers of support based on the tiers of your plan. Free users get basic support with a 5-7 day SLA. Paid users get far better. However, if it's advertised to me as being $50 and I am using it for free, I'm not a customer. I'm not using it as advertised. Would this change the business model of a lot of start ups? You bet it would. But it would change it for the better in the customer's eyes. Maybe the "free tier" becomes the free trial, time-limited. Maybe paid users will no longer subsidize the paid users. Maybe companies will think through their business model a little more and not offer free service for just long enough to get embedded in someone's life then realize they have to shut down for lack of money. I would love to see a shift from "user" to "customer". You don't have 200,000 users if they're not paying you. You have 200,000 customers and 0 profit.

trias 12y ago

The law in question is not intended regulate business-customer-relations, but is also for business-business of business-press-relation or any other form of contact. If you operate a business in germany and have a website you have to have an "impressum". Even most personal sites put up an "impressum" even if they are not required too, just because everyone is scared of the "impressumspflicht".

junto 12y ago
Interesting. Thanks for sharing that.