The Difference Between “Patron” and “Customer” in Public Libraries

In twentieth century England, the phrase “Thank you for your custom,” is shorthand for “Thank you for having chosen our establishment as a place to exchange your money for the goods and services we offer.” (I’ve heard the shorthand phrase many times as a young man watching retail-based British Comedy television shows like Open All Hours and Are You Being Served?) Here, in America, we use the British idea of “custom” (what a person grants to a seller) to inform our word for “customer” (what a person becomes upon entering a seller’s place of business).

In 2012, Valerie Gross wrote a book on renewing perceptions of the library called Transforming Our Image, Building Our Brand: The Education Advantage. It is a fine book on library marketing and on how we can use a new lexicon to speak the language of funding stakeholders. However, instead of proposing changes to the language concerning libraries that, in my opinion, should be changed (like “stacks” and “reference”), she suggests we make sweeping changes to the language of libraries to better make ourselves understood by stakeholders at the expense of the community which we serve.

The premise of Gross’s work is that government officials – local, state, national – control budgets. Education is deemed more valuable than library services to these officials. Therefore, we must convince these officials that libraries “are” education. This is to be accomplished by changing both the language we use in libraries and the language we use about libraries. Gross goes on at length to advocate changing all “library-speak” words to fit an education agenda format—because people (journalists, officials, patrons) otherwise cannot understand what “we” mean (p. 30).

The use of “customer” rather than “patron” is where, in my opinion, Gross demonstrates a lack of vision. She says that the term “customer” is a solid business term, easily understandable to those in charge of the purse strings. On the other hand, the term “patron” is dangerous because “patron associates the library with museums and other arts organizations (e.g., “patron of the arts”), which are funded in great part through private donations made by patrons, precisely the trend we are aiming to halt in these challenging economic times —and at all times” (p. 37). Yes, there is a close association between the arts and libraries, but this is not in any way undesirable. She is correct in characterizing the economic side of patronage through private donations, but she does not make clear why philanthropic community interest should be halted at all costs.

What Gross does not seem to realize is that government funding for most libraries is finite. Philanthropic funding through grants and donations, on the other hand, is becoming a wonderfully open option for libraries, especially for small community libraries that may not have the wide-ranging government resources of a large county system, for example. Even still, consider this: is it beneficial for a library to cater to crass, fiduciary (i.e., non-philanthropic) interests while losing its own identity of service in the process?

Allow me to explain. “Patron” is a term of respect we use for those who support us with their presence: our fans, as it were. On the other hand, a “customer” is a person who engages in an economic quid pro quo. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the term “customer” in its proper place; however, I contend that a library is not the proper place. I admire Gross’s attempts to propose increasing the possible availability of funds through redirecting the use of language. However, I believe she goes too far by proposing to “rename” those whom we serve.

Library professionals treat patrons with a special dignity, a dignity that does not have to be earned to be deserved. Patrons give us their time and their presence. Patrons are not served as a means for libraries to receive something tangible in return, as are customers in commercial endeavors. We serve only to give access to information, access which might be used to create new information. This new information may even lead to the formation of new knowledge. If we maintain that it is more important to help stakeholders understand our services by referring to our patrons as customers, we risk both insulting the intelligence of our stakeholders and losing the unique focus of our service to the community.