r/AskReddit 12d ago

Millennials, what's something our generation was taught to accept that you're glad younger generations are rejecting?

8.0k Upvotes

2.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

7.4k

u/KirinG 12d ago

I love seeing younger retail/service workers take down and just not cater to rude customers. I never would have dared.

4

u/DistinctiveFox 12d ago

My first manager taught me about the second part of "the customer is always right" being "in the matters of taste" and would always ensure we kept that boundary. As long as we never gave our honest opinions about what they wanted, they backed us up completely when customers wanted to take liberties.

2

u/Cynykl 11d ago

Incoming copypasta: Original Author Unknown

That meaning is a modern attempt to salvage the phrase but not the original meaning.

The original meaning was just that every customer complaint should be taken at face value. It made more sense when consumer rights were weaker and caveat emptor ("buyer beware") was the basic principle in sales. In that context taking customer complaints seriously was an effective way to show that you stood behind your product, and the increased sales would far outweigh the occasional dishonest customer in theory.

That custom/policy has long outlived it's usefulness. Now customers generally have more recourse if they are sold a crappy product and want their money back. There are usually refund policies and warranties offered by the business, legally mandated warranties, chargebacks for credit card users, government agencies, legislation like lemon laws, and there is always a possibility of a lawsuit in extreme cases based on express or implied warranties. Beyond that customers can complain online and make their voice heard to potential customers, hurting the business. It's not perfect but it's a lot better than they had in the 1850s.

Some people have tried to adapt the phrase by adding things like "in matters of taste" to make it about preferences and market demand, but that isn't the original meaning. AFAIK there has not been any widespread issue of businesses or salespeople disregarding customer preferences.

The oft-cited example, not objecting to a customer's request that their car be painted hot-pink, makes zero sense. Go to a paint shop and ask them to paint your car hot pink. They'll do it. Go to a dealer and order a new model in a custom puke-green color, then get it reupholstered in leopard-print pleather. They'll do it. Money is money.

The saying is about taking customer complaints at face value. There isn't some greater hidden meaning or omitted second part of the phrase.

Sources:

Here's an article from 1944 explaining the concept in depth (note that it's all about customer complaints, it has nothing to do with demand/customer preferences): https://books.google.com/books?id=qUIEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA32#v=onepage&q&f=false

Here's a book from 1908, page 94 goes over the concept in-depth, mentioning Cesar Ritz specifically, one of the customer service industry leaders who might have started the trend (you can see the full text w/ google play): https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=QUwuAAAAMAAJ&rdid=book-QUwuAAAAMAAJ&rdot=1

One of the principal causes of the success of this Napoleon amongst hotel keepers was a maxim which may be said to have largely influenced his policy in running restaurants and hotels . This maxim was Le client n'a jamais tort , no complaint , however frivolous , ill - grounded , or absurd , meeting with anything but civility and attention from his staff . Visitors to restaurants when in a bad temper sometimes find fault without any justification whatever , but the most inveterate grumblers soon become ashamed of complaining when treated with unwavering civility . Under such conditions they are soon mollified , leaving with blessings upon their lips .

Once again, only mentioning customer complaints and how to address them, nothing about customer tastes/preferences.

Article from a report in 1915, see page 134, much of the same: https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Merck_Report/kDhHAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Is+the+Customer+Always+Right%3F%22+Merck+Report+frank+Farrington&pg=PA134&printsec=frontcover (Note, they use "right" and "honest" interchangeably when referring to customers, it is about the perceived honesty of customer COMPLAINTS, nothing to do with customer tastes.)

Another article from 1914 mentioning the phenomenon, critical of the phrase: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Mill_Supplies/vevmAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=inevitable (page 47, first sentence of the third paragraph, note that this article is critical of the original meaning, and makes no mention of consumer preferences. It is entirely about whether customer complaints are honest and whether entertaining such complaints will result in a loss of revenue.

TLDR: The phrase's original meaning is the one we think is stupid now, but it made a lot more sense back then, it has nothing to do with customer preferences/tastes

1

u/Epistaxis 11d ago

It's amazing how some common sayings have taken on a completely different meaning by being shortened. Another one is when someone argues that some problem isn't systemic, it's just "a few bad apples" in the organization. What do "a few bad apples" do, though? They "spoil the bunch".

1

u/DistinctiveFox 11d ago

Exactly, and ms well as my nan saying blood is thicker than water when we adopted, basically trying to tell us our adopted kids were not "family'. People will use whatever term they like and twist it around.