|
Wow, those words are a great example of dribble that is really saying nothing SirTank.
What I said is not a logical fallacy. It is a very honest and serious reason to call them ALL customers, as Matt said. And it's the very reason people use the pay-for-perks model. Because while some people sacrifice their time, and yes, labor to obtain status and ability within the game, others sacrifice money. And if you are trying to be professional, you can't choose what to call some of them, while having another term to call the others. So Matt chooses to call all of them "customer". All very well within the scope of the definition of all of those words.
As a side note - this is exactly what I did and most business owners do. When I owned a Sports and Gaming Card shop, I called everyone who came in the door a "customer" - even the kids who only came in to play around and NEVER spent a dime in my store.
It's also what most undergraduate and graduate level business and advertising classes teach. The use of the word customer to everyone - even non-paying people - not only is technically correct (because people have to sacrifice something: money, time, effort/labor, etc), it makes them feel important. It makes "non-paying customers" think they will get the same level of service as someone who pays.
But from your last post, I doubt you have ever taken a graduate (or even undergraduate) level advertising or business class, and thus I doubt you will be able to agree with it.
|