Matt Jones picks up on some other bloggers’ disgust and despair about the tired and dirty terms consumer and user, and wonders whether there might be a simple and adequate replacement:
A colleague here at Nokia suggest a simple substitute for both words, after hearing me whine one-time-too-many about the usage of ‘consumer’.
He suggested “Individual”.
Does that work? A quick mental search-and-replace as a test:
User-centred design = Individual-centred design
Consumer electronics = Electronics for individuals
Consumer awareness = Individual’s awareness
User interface = Interface to an individual
Matt gives “indidividual” 7/10 and asks for our thoughts.
Well, I’m coming at it from a different angle than designers probably do, but I’m guessing the problem that using the term “individual” might solve is this: both “consumer” and “user” are inadequate terms because they construct passive [individuals].
These terms construct purchasers or operators of objects whose design and purpose are assumed to be neatly contained in the mind of the producer. And this runs counter to all good contemporary thinking (I’m guessing) on how design does and should work (open, transparent, participatory, minimal??), and how our interactions with cultural formations and objects (cities, screens, buildings, computers, celebrities, games, and phones) more broadly do work.
[I need to point out, though, that the “not” in the title of this post refers to my belief that part of the problem that the term ‘consumer’ has is a widespread failure to understand that consumption is not necessarily passive in the first place]
So in these terms, “individual” doesn’t work too well either – in fact it erases all trace of the interaction between a person and a technology or cultural object or, indeed, other human beings.
As for other alternatives, I kind of like “prosumer” as a blend of producer and consumer, but it leaves that dichotomy intact and is a term used to refer to hi-fi enthusiasts as much as anything. And it’s just so…corporate buzzword-esque.
So bugger it, why not “player”?? It’s a pipe dream I know, but it would be cool.
I’d love to hear any other ideas.
2 responses to “Consumption is [not] a Dirty Word”
Prosumer is the joining of “professional” and “consumer” in the audio marketplace (and elsewhere). It’s used to (interestingly enough) describe gear that is better (more options, inputs/outputs, capabilities, etc.) than off-the-shelf stuff but lacks something found in truly professional gear (usually the guts themselves).
So, by example: A stereo system
Consumer: radio, CD player, basic, works. Designed to sit on a shelf.
Prosumer: radio, CD player, auxilliary jack (aka phono), 7-band equalizer. Designed to sit on a shelf or with other like-components (to form the “Shrine to Technology” often seen in catalogs and your rich buddies flats).
Professional: radio, dual CD-R drives, powered (aux) and unpowered (phono) input jacks, 12 band EQ (plus input option so you can use your own external EQ) output via S/Pdf, coax, and USB, lots of gold wiring inside, high-end pre-amps. Designed to be rack-mounted.
Anyway… prosumer doesn’t work because the word has traction and a different meaning than what you’re ascribing it to. But your heart’s in the right place.
g
Yes, I am aware of that use of the term – I was interested in reclaiming the “pro” for “producer”, rather than “professional” – the meaning of “prosumer” is pretty close to “professional consumer” – it’s like being born to shop, only not for fashion but for high-end audio gear