“Buyers” are real. “Customers” aren’t. 

Customers are Mary Sues in market fan-fiction. Protocol fiction archetypes. 

This is much clearer in traditional commerce, where there is a clean distinction between customer-as-divine-archetype and buyers.

“Customer” is a ritual role buyers sometimes play.

It’s like “elected representative” or other ascriptive status role. 

An illustrative example I like is“bohni” — the first transaction of the day, which has ceremonial significance in trad Indian commerce. Buyers in this role play “customer” representing an ideal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohni.

Blogger at ribbonfarm.com, running summerofprotocols.com, host of /gloom ☀️

Drucker had a useful refactor of the idea of a customer as something businesses *create* but it never really caught on. Most people use the word to point to an ideal that magically exists “out there.” A “Choosing One”

Drucker had a useful refactor of the idea of a customer as something businesses *create* but it never really caught on. Most people use the word to point to an ideal that magically exists “out there.” A “Choosing One”

https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/06/15/marketing-innovation-and-the-creation-of-customers/

Sometimes people use “customer” to mean ordinary buyers, but any time I hear bad and pious-sounding business ideas, I usually find the *unacknowledged* ritual idea of a customer being uncritically centered. 

The ceremonial archetype is only useful so long as it’s recognized as such.