1Rob Fields

Heading to the airport shortly. However, the thing to explore is, in fact, the dimishing demarcation between producer and consumer. Roles are changing and the people formerly known as consumers are able to produce content (and products?) that are just as good (and perhaps more engaging!) than that created by those who get paid to create. Will think about it as I'm stuck in the middle seat all the way to LA.

November 17, 2006

2Noah Brier

I agree Rob, that's a huge part of it (and thanks to Jason for the thought). If you come up with anything please let me know. I think this is something worth pushing. I know in Cluetrain they suggest customers, but I don't know if that's descriptive enough.

November 17, 2006

3Chet Gulland

totally agreed. aside from coming up with a whole new word, which is definitely tricky, i've been trying to use more specific words across different industries, different types of "consumers" etc. i've been thinking that maybe it's the case that because of many of the shifts you talk about, there might not simply be one word that will work. maybe there are too many type of consumption now. maybe there is a set. but…ok, trying to find one word:

i think definitely the word "participant" captures a lot of what needs to be captured, but still doesn't work.

but you know, maybe there's a sexier word for "socio-economic participant," maybe there's something more to the idea of "member." without seaming words together, i tend to find these specific words useful as a way to avoid consumer:

consumer of printed media: reader or audience
consumer of online/participatory media: audience or participant or user
consumer of services: client
consumer of an auto vehicle: user
consumer of air: breather (ok…..)

and finally, I think the problem where this word is hard to replace, is when you're dealing with something that is just down and dirty consumption. like eating at mcdonalds. I don't find myself being much of a procumer with stuff like this. It's basically unchanged. I eat and get the hell out.

November 17, 2006

4Mike

This is a stretch.

You see hundreds of people each day that are reflecting their brands. Whether they are wearing a polo brand shirt, nike shoes, or carrying a cup of Starbux. People consume and as they are doing it they project their consumtion out.

Brands obviously love this, but its definitely a two way street. People need to associate with brands just as much. Like you say above "People are buying products and associating with brands as a way to form (and display) their identity."

So without further adieu my word for these people is -
consumeleons = consumers + chameleons.

What do you think?

November 17, 2006

5Justin

This discussion parallels some of the trends in participatory journalism in recent years, where the traditional structure of news producer and news consumer has been broken down. Initially bloggers were looked at as amateurs by traditional journalists, but when the blogging community began to show itself as an often faster, less sugar-coated news source (The Drudge Report and bloggers in New Orleans during Katrina come to mind), traditional news outlets were forced to take notice. As a result, many online papers encourage comments in the same way that blogs do. Just yesterday I read an article online, noticed a factual inaccuracy, commented on it and received an explanatory email from the writer – pretty cool. This sort of structure is beneficial for everyone involved. Still can’t think of a better word than consumer, though… Consumitant? Partisumer?

November 17, 2006

6Max Kalehoff

I don't disagree that consumer is not the best word, but there have been numerous waves where marketers and others have concluded that it is outdated and consequently tried to adopt something new -- to little success. I don't mean to cop out here, but I'd first ask you to provide a comprehensive description of the segment or group for whom you're trying to rid of the word consumer. In most advertising circles, consumer tends to mean the everyday people who you try to sell your goods to. Regardless, if people can first describe what they're trying to brand, then we can go through the branding exercise.

November 17, 2006

7debbie millman

hey noah--how about "people" ?

November 18, 2006

8jeff

people...who need people...

November 18, 2006

9Loren Feldman

are the luckiest people

November 18, 2006

10russell

'People' is good. Or 'person', if there's just one of them.

November 18, 2006

11El Gaffney

Dr. Bob Deutsch suggested "People, not consumers" at the APG Conference this year and nearly got a standing O. You can check out his speech here: http://brain-sells.com/. I don't believe people is a cop out, but rather names consumers as they/we'd name them/ourselves. Marketing and brands and consumption are only part of what makes them people. I found myself nodding along to Mike's post - he uses "people" 5x - until he finally substitutes a word (albeit cool mashup) that we make up for them.

If it's certainly not we tell/sell them anymore, and often they tell us or co-create our brands which are becoming more and more like humans (the good ones at least), it would seem the conversation between us/brand and them/consumer is now just real dialogue between two (or more) people. And then collectively we can rename them based on terms you'd both collectively agree to and use to define your relationship - See Russell's poll on the future of brands = "Friends with benefits." I'm not your buyer, customer or consumer, but your friend. Or we're not that tight, so I'm just an acquaintance.

In the end, if we left it up to these now-called consumers to choose, I believe they'd say don't insult my intelligence (obviously) just treat me like a person, individual, or human being. Even creating a word like "Beings," which may be justified by assoc. with human beings is wrong not only because they're more "Doers" than beings, but also because it's us telling them.

So far substituting people for consumers has helped a bit in getting creatives to reconsider the role our brands and communications play in their multi-dimensional lives; that they're not sitting, waiting, programmed as you say to consume.

November 18, 2006

12CK

Doc Searls has long been advocating against consumer since many are producing. But not all, so I advocate for "participant" since it's a participatory economy.

Also give props to Debbie's oh-so-spot-on word with "people" (that makes us all equal).

November 20, 2006

13Roger von Oech

Hi Noah,

I've never gone wrong when I've thought about the people who use my products as CUSTOMERS.

When I see them as CUSTOMERS, I readier to serve them and think abut their needs. I'm also more likely to see them as people.

------------

I found out about your site from Paul (Hee-Haw) and CK. It's gorgeous. [what publishing tool do you use?]

Best wishes,

Roger von Oech

November 20, 2006

14orli

participatory consumerism, participatory marketing, even participatory democracy (finally! -sort of-) make me feel good that at least some people are actually contributing to their own lives in a meaningful way. so that's great.

but i don't think the word "consumer" needs to change. i've noticed and become awfully depressed lately at the shocking level of obsessive consumerism that has our nation in its grip.
the etymology of "consume" ----
---from L. consumere "to use up, eat, waste," from com- intensive prefix + sumere "to take," from sub- "under" + emere "to buy, take"---

and it does seem to wrap up exactly what so many people around me (and myself, often, as well) are doing.
maybe it's more often participatory, but consumerism isn't dead.

November 21, 2006

15Johanna

I just call them People.

November 23, 2006

16V-+a%S(p#E*rsT=`hE..]gra_Te[

I use Consumer-Producer-Distributor. We are heading rapidly into an age where almost everything is FREE, and almost every product is co-produced by customers, who are paying more attention to other customers, than to advertising and marketing.

November 23, 2006

17Josh

Two thoughts spring to my mind on this day after Thanksgiving:

1) Language/slang/the common parlance tends to evolve organically. If a word to replace consumer doesn't come to mind immediately, do we need one yet? Sorry—just into my cups and playing devil's advocate.

2) Upper management at every print media outlet I've worked at has been deeply enamored of the idea that our readers want to be more involved with the content-creation process. But often, the response from readers seems to be that it's our to produce content. I can sympathize with that, in the sense that, after a long day of work, I kind of like being a passive consumer. I do think the increasingly interactive world offers a real chance to get more feedback about how to produce things people want, but I just mention this because I think there's a movement to encourage audience participation just because we can—and, student of Neil Postman that I am, I am vehemently opposed to doing anything only because it's become possible.

November 25, 2006

18Josh

Oops: That was "our job." Gah!

November 25, 2006