Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by whoopdedo 1152 days ago
It's what the phrase "the customer is always right" originally meant. It means you can do all the market research, development, testing, polling, and seeding to sell a product. But the ultimate decider of whether the product is "good" is whether or not the people buy it. If your sales plan flops don't say "it's not the product's fault, I just need to do a better job marketing it." No, the product is wrong, the customer is right. Don't try to change peoples' behavior, instead change your marketing to target what people are actually buying. That could mean scrapping the project because it's unpopular, but could also mean narrowing the focus to the smaller population that really does want what you're selling.

Well, that's what it originally meant. Nowadays it's been twisted to mean reacting to every minor complaint and demand in order to retain existing customers, no matter how unreasonable or costly the effort. Rather than helping increase productivity it's become a weapon to punish subordinate sales staffs.

5 comments

One thing is clear: MS doesn't really care about customer satisfaction at all. There is no single innovative thing in Windows 11 that would make me switch over. I use Windows 11 on company machines only; I don't understand why anyone would voluntarily put up with this crap.
Because Microsoft almost have a monopoly on the OS market. Pretty much the only alternative for users who aren't tech savvy enough to comfortably use Linux is to buy a Mac, which will price out a lot of people. Even if you are able to use Linux (or can afford a Mac), the popularity of Windows means that you will eventually run into a piece of software you need that isn't available for your OS and won't run in Wine, forcing you to use Windows by some other means.
The next time I build a gaming computer, I'm gonna hold my nose and do it. I know Proton is good, but it is still a compromise for a lot of games.
I think the original saying was longer, and something along the lines of, "the customer is always right when it comes to taste".
No, that's a more recent thing.
It doesn't matter how much you paid: You aren't the customer, you're the product.
There's a saying in Japanese that precisely describes this situation: 鴨が葱を背負ってくる. The literal translation is "a duck approaches you with a leek on its back." It refers to good luck brought by someone waiting to be exploited. Paying money for a product that works against you is exactly this.
That description sounds very similar to the Farfetch'd Pokemon [0]. Was that the original influence?

[0]: https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Farfetch%27d_(Pok%C3...

It probably is, and the English name for that Pokemon is a reflection of that. How likely would duck come along carrying ingredients for stew? That’d be “far-fetched.”
>>That could mean scrapping the project because it's unpopular, but could also mean narrowing the focus to the smaller population that really does want what you're selling.

... or, keep improving the product to the point where most people actually find it useful, which is obviously an option for Microsoft, with cash reserves to fund centuries of development. Find out what the downsides are, and fix them, or offer actually compelling benefits.

Heck, I'm very hard-set against it, but I just heard about Apple starting to offer savings accts with 4.5% interest. If MS started paying that much, with trustworthy security and no upper limit, I might sign up (i.e., if you pay me enough, I might also accept your other parts of the offer).

It must be damn valuable for MS to have us have accounts, and if so, they could actually afford to provide better returns than banks, because the return to MS would be [banking profit] + [network profit].

> or, keep improving the product to the point where most people actually find it useful

Some product ideas can't be made desirable and useful no matter how much improvement they get.

Desirable to who ? Windows 11 users are the product not the _customer_

You, a windows 11 licensee, are a captive market for microsoft to sell your eyeballs to advertisers.

"I am going to sell clicks to advertisers and the cost of customer acquisition is negative $10 per customer -- they pay us to get advertised to!"

True, but you start paying enough, and you'll get bigger and bigger populations who find it an acceptable bargain.

You'll also always have some who see through it.

Please define "Customer" in this context?

There are several parties at this party. One is the person who bought a computer with an operating system on it; possibly they even paid for the operating system itself, though more likely they are using the operating system that came on the computer they're using. Another party is the one who bought a license from microsoft; occasionally they're the same party but more typically it is some sort of vendor who did this. And there's also the party that's giving microsoft money to put advertising in front of the "consumer."

So -- it isn't clear to me who in this context is "always right"

In the newspaper industry, the 'Customer' refers to the advertisers who pay for the ads, advertorials, sponsored content, etc that actually make the publication a viable business model.

The individual who buys and reads the newspapaper is referred to as the 'Consumer'.

If you buy a car from a dealership does that make you less of a customer of the manufacturer?
If you buy a car from a dealership, then yes indeed you are "less" of a customer of the manufacturer.

Consider this relationship:

Toyota makes a car to the specifications of general motors, who brands the car as a "Pontiac Vibe" and sells the car to a Pontiac dealership. The Pontiac dealership then sells you the car at mostly a wash because you're also financing the purchase and they want to sell "your" loan to a loan bundler and reseller.

So -- everyone gets a cut, and almost nobody's actually got a direct interest in how the schlub who buys a car feels about the car.

I don't believe you've proven the point you're attempting to make.

Tesla is a rather famous example of a car manufacturer that doesn't have a dealership model. Do you imagine that GM or Toyota is somehow less interested in how their cars are either liked or disliked by their target audiences than Tesla is? That seems pretty hard to imagine.

I'll try to be clear here:

Microsoft is selling your eyeballs to advertisers: You are the product not the customer.

Vendors are buying windows from Microsoft and installing it onto a computer and selling that computer to you. You are buying a computer not windows. If you need support you talk to the vendor, not microsoft. The vendor is the customer to Microsoft, not you.

And regarding cars -- car companies make lots of crappy cars and sell them to dealerships who have to buy them regardless of if they want them or not. The dealerships are the customers of the car companies. You are a customer of the dealership. 99% of the time if you've got a problem with the car, the manufacturer is going to be of limited use to you.

> Microsoft is selling your eyeballs to advertisers: You are the product not the customer.

> Vendors are buying windows from Microsoft and installing it onto a computer and selling that computer to you. You are buying a computer not windows.

Sometimes people are buying Windows[1].

It is possible to be the customer for the OS and the product for the ads at the same time.

---

1. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/d/windows-11-home/dg7gmgf0kr...

This seems like something we’ll get to see play out over the next few years. Given that GM has decided that they don’t care if customers want CarPlay, we’ll see if customers say “No thanks” to buying cars from GM because of that.
I'm pretty sure they're doing this because they know a good chunk of their customers don't want this.