Has the term, consumer" taken the place of "customer" in the UK as totally as it has here in the USA?

Not by those who know the difference, which is simple enough.

A customer is a person or organisation that buys or acquires a product or service which he, she or it might or might not consume. Most customers are not consumers; they acquire products or services for onward sale or disposal to others - most so-called "business to business" transactions are of that nature: the energy supplier sells to the steelworks; the steelworks sells to the foundry; the foundry sells to the engine manufacturer; the engine manufacturer sells to the car-maker; the car maker sells to the dealer and the dealer, at last, sells to the user.

The consumer is that final link in the chain - the person who consumes the product or service.

Thus most consumers are customers, but most customers are not consumers.

Asa, I haven't noticed that change taking place here in the U.S., though I very well might not have noticed it. I will make it a point to pay attention to when each term is used. I tend to think of consumer and customer as Richard does.

I agee that there is an important distinction. We should try to preserve it. In England, both words: consumer and customer have been abused and devalued, especially in the public services. Patients in our failing health services are degraded by being called customers by managerial bureaucrats, and children in schools and colleges are similarly often classed as consumers or customers. Oh for the days of 'patients' and 'pupils' and 'students'.
Pearce

quote:

Patients in our failing health services are degraded by being called customers by managerial bureaucrats,

I totally agree with this. In nursing (in the U.S.) we are supposed to call patients "clients." The point is that not all patients are ill, I suppose. Nurses often visit new mothers and babies in their homes, and they don't want to call them "patients." Still, to me, they are "patients" for the nurses. How can we call a really ill patient in the ICU a "client." At least the U.S. physicians haven't changed their terminology...yet.

I think of customer as an economic term: one who pays for goods and services; patient is more of a medical term: one who seeks treatment for an illness or disease. Patient emphasizes medical treatment and TLC, while customer emphasizes the money. When you're in the hospital, would you rather be seen as someone in need of medical care or as someone who needs to be parted from his money?

I see client the same as customer, though maybe a little more highbrow-sounding, and definitely more clinical and impersonal.

Tinman

Patients can be customers, but don't have to be; customers could be patients, but aren't usually.

The Railways of Britain, some years ago, underwent training which had as one of its objectives that of creating a "customer-focussed" culture. Amongst other things this meant changing the traditional term "passengers" to "customers". I happen to think that was a silly idea since there are many passengers who use the railways who are not customers and, although there are many customers who use the railways who are not passengers, the announcements about train services are clearly for the benefit of passengers.

WE had this discussion a while ago, here.

I've been hearing some of my administrators starting to call our customers patrons again, though, which should please some of you.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by tinman:
]customer[/i] emphasizes the money. When you're in the hospital, would you rather be seen as someone in need of medical care or as someone who needs to be parted from his money?

Didn't the great bard have the answer— that shows how degrading are the current applications of these impersonal terms:
"Age cannot wither her, nor custom stale her infinite variety" [Anthony and Cleopatra]

quote:

"Age cannot wither her, nor custom stale her infinite variety" [Anthony and Cleopatra]

I've considered "custom" in this case to mean "habit," or "routine." Indeed, I'm fascinated by the above discussion of "custom" as an economic term. My original thinking was that it suggested a routine practice, or habit, or pattern. A merchant who served a "customer" would provide that which one routinely purchased rather than manipulating his patterns through marketing ploys, thereby turning him into a brainless "consumer" of "product." Is my thinking truly archaic?

Does this turn upon finding out when the word "custom" and its forms acquired the separate meanings of

• a line of trade
• a purchaser ('customer')
• a tradition or habitual mode of action (the 'custom' of saying grace before meals)?

quote:

Originally posted by Asa Lovejoy:

quote:

"Age cannot wither her, nor custom stale her infinite variety" [Anthony and Cleopatra]

I've considered "custom" in this case to mean "habit," or "routine." Indeed,… My original thinking was that it suggested a routine practice, or habit, or pattern. : Is my thinking truly archaic?

No. I was being archaic too, or rather, sentimental in archaic fashion. I was trying to stress how these impersonal terms of customer, client etc. obfusctae the infinite variety and dignity of the individual.

"It is not true that people stop pursuing dreams because they grow old, they grow old because they stop pursuing dreams."
Gabriel Garcia Marquez
--------------------------------------------------
Even the Very Old Man with Very Large Wings?