Unfortunately, the “in matters is taste” line isn’t true and appears to have originated on the internet in about the last decade, being popularized on Reddit. The original phrase was “the customer is always right”, full stop.
The slogan has its origins in early 1900s retailers, as the previous predominant principle in commerce was essentially “buyer beware”, that the relationship between buyer and seller was inherently distrustful. In an attempt to gain shopper’s trust, retailers such as Sears and Marshall Field issued instructions to their employees to satisfy customers regardless of if they’re right or wrong. This led to a number of similar maxims, including the above.
Why so I care so damn much? Two reasons. First, I’m a stickler for facts and “in matters of taste” is entirely unsupported. Second, and greatest of all, is how it shifts the responsibility for encouraging bad customer behavior from the retailer to the customer, as if the customer is intentionally misinterpreting an element of the social contract for personal gain. The original intent, to require retail employees to satisfy customers regardless of their behavior, was driven by retailers for greater profits at the expense of their employees. It grooms customers toward bad behavior as they know acting out will get them a better deal or service. Sure, customers must choose to behave in such a manner, but it’s the retailers condoning and even encouraging such behavior that allows it to so easily continue.
Edit: I recommend the Wikipedia article for more info. While I don’t often suggest Wikipedia articles, I may or may not regularly curate that one.
Unfortunately, the “in matters is taste” line isn’t true and appears to have originated on the internet in about the last decade, being popularized on Reddit. The original phrase was “the customer is always right”, full stop.
The slogan has its origins in early 1900s retailers, as the previous predominant principle in commerce was essentially “buyer beware”, that the relationship between buyer and seller was inherently distrustful. In an attempt to gain shopper’s trust, retailers such as Sears and Marshall Field issued instructions to their employees to satisfy customers regardless of if they’re right or wrong. This led to a number of similar maxims, including the above.
Why so I care so damn much? Two reasons. First, I’m a stickler for facts and “in matters of taste” is entirely unsupported. Second, and greatest of all, is how it shifts the responsibility for encouraging bad customer behavior from the retailer to the customer, as if the customer is intentionally misinterpreting an element of the social contract for personal gain. The original intent, to require retail employees to satisfy customers regardless of their behavior, was driven by retailers for greater profits at the expense of their employees. It grooms customers toward bad behavior as they know acting out will get them a better deal or service. Sure, customers must choose to behave in such a manner, but it’s the retailers condoning and even encouraging such behavior that allows it to so easily continue.
Edit: I recommend the Wikipedia article for more info. While I don’t often suggest Wikipedia articles, I may or may not regularly curate that one.