From first-job retail workers to industry professionals with decades-long careers, chances are that a big percentage of those in the retail industry have heard the phrase, "the customer is always right" or one of its derivatives at least once. Though the idea has been debated on numerous mediums & platforms, the very fact that this concept has been around for over 100 years, at the very least, demonstrates its staying power in regard to the relationship model between retail sales & service-oriented industries and those they provide products and services for.

Why does this phrase still hold a significant impact in retail industry? Could it be that organizations simply leverage the idea as a cookie-cutter approach toward operational standards regardless of its objective value in customer interactions? Or is the straightforward nature so free of distractions that, to come up with any sort of substitute would muddle the foundational principles of customer experience? Though at best it would be extremely difficult to argue either for or against these questions, through a little bit of theorycraft and an experiential approach, the article will attempt to provide a counter-argument in the customer experience model.

Let's try to logically structure the idea that, "The Customer is Always Right" by defining three terms in the statement:

• To make reference to the idea of "always", implies a complete and absolute certainty to which a counter concept is impossible.
• To make reference to the idea of "right", would imply, strictly within in the scope of this statement, that any speech or action is favorable toward the subject.
• In defining a customer, we will imply that an individual or organization which completes a transaction with a product or service provider will satisfy the definition of a customer

With that, we'll rephrase the initial idea to: "The actions taken by an individual or organization which completes a transaction with a provider of a product or service, within the scope of that transaction will be, with absolute certainty, subjected favorably in relation to any speech or action initiated by the individual or organization executing the transaction."

No doubt, there's a lot going on with that statement. While there's no marketing value or catchiness to it, the statement will help to map out transactions that either prove or disprove whether or not "the Customer is Always Right", and whether or not the statement should hold any influence in the modern retail industry.

 

To begin, let's provide a few assumptions to assist in further defining scope:

1. The relative morality of a customer holds no value or influence within the scope of a retail transaction. The customer could kick puppies, yell at babies, and/or just be a generally terrible person/people. Even if those conditions are satisfied, it has no impact on a transaction.
2. Furthermore to point #1, a provider of a product or service will never assume intent of a customer in the scope of a transaction. Unless intent is directly stated and yields a provider of a product or service with a valid reason to terminate a transaction, non-communicated intent of use for a product or service has no impact on a transaction. If however, intent is explicitly stated and yields a valid reason to terminate a transaction, the definition of customer no longer applies.
3. To satisfy the definition of a transaction, we will assume that in order to qualify as one it must be legal. Though there's no research into case law by the website at time of writing (this article may be updated should such research occur), instances in which customers conduct transactions & purchases for the use of illegal activities are still valid transactions, as long as that given transaction is executed under all appropriate federal, state, and local laws.
4. To expand upon the definition of "customer" that was previously defined, we will assume that a customer in the early and/or preparation stages of executing a transaction will be included in interactions outside the actual transaction. In other words, a person or organization that is 'shopping' will be included as 'customers', and potential transaction counts as a transaction.

What are all of these assumptions good for?

One intent of providing additional clarification is to filter out interactions that shouldn't really count to prove or disprove the idea that "The Customer is Always Right". Two examples, one theoretical (though the possibility is not out of the question) and one experiential should not be included, as at best, the definition of customer is not satisfied:

• Example #1: An individual goes to a hardware store to buy hatchets, knives, chainsaws, industrial trash bags, and other hardware. The individual communicates to a floor associate that their intent is to murder & dismember people with the supplies this individual is purchasing. In addition to moral considerations, the exposure of liability to the hardware store, through the completion of this transaction presents a hazard to its reputation & business continuity in the event this communication is proven to have occurred. In this example, though the relative morality holds no value as it relates to the potential transaction, it was implicitly communicated & not assumed that an illegal activity will commence with the use of the supplies. At best, this individual is not a customer, and therefore "The Customer is Always Right" does not apply.
• Example #2: For transactions of certain products to occur, federal, state, and local laws drafted to regulate the sale & exchange of these products, with the intent of public safety are enacted. Common examples include age restrictions with validation requests prior to premise entry, age validation prior to the purchase of a product or service, and requirements to which retailers must terminate a transaction if they are not met. The most common example in situations like this are ID checks prior to the purchase of alcohol. Again, completely excluding any concept of relative morality, if an individual under the legal age is attempting to purchase alcohol in a potential transaction, since the transaction would essentially violate law, the individual would not fall under the condition of customer.

A perspective that's a bit more niche, though still applicable to this overarching idea applies to the adult products industry. Of those who have ventured into adult-themed shops, in addition to the...adult...entertainment & recreation products (really trying to avoid the use of terms containing a certain s-word and attaching it to items that children interact with...hopefully that point is conveyed :/ ) there are also smoking products and 'novelty' items that have dual use...which we'll try to keep limited and only within the scope of this article. Like alcohol, many products sold in this category of stores are regulated, in many cases at the state-level. In addition to those regulations, financial fiduciaries such as insurance & bond companies often place additional guidance in order to protect a given organization's interests.

Satisfying the conditions of an adult-themed shop, the products sold have the potential to present deception in instances such as pre-employment screening and other testing in relation to intoxicants in the system. Of those who work or have worked in shops such as these, there's a pretty good chance that management has drilled front-line staff on instances in which a potential transaction is to be terminated; an example being something such as, 'I'm going to need something that will cleanse/mask a [substance] in my system for a test', at which point the provider is not to sell the product. As off-the-beaten-path as this example is, it very much provides a practical example of purpose and intent in the scope of a potential transaction and a valid reason to terminate it. Though potential arguments could be made as to whether the definition of a customer is satisfied in situations like these, it makes sense to exclude the entirety of these scenarios under conditions (2) and depending on state & local law, condition (3) above.

Now that we've extrapolated the phrase and provided some perspective on how it would not apply to certain categories of transactions, where does that leave the rest of the retail transaction model? Can it be stated with certainty that within the definitions provided, the phrase, "the Customer is Always Right" is absolute and relevant in today's day and age?

In the most common examples, it makes sense to focus on customer escalations, as it's one of those aspects in retail work that; 1) Any given front-line retail worker has faced during their time in the industry, and 2) It's very possible that it's the one aspect of working in retail that has the greatest potential to linger beyond the workplace.

While it's probably one of the most well known nomenclatures in modern social interaction, we're going to avoid the use of the term, 'Karen' in relation to retail transactions. The internet has documented their existence and though they very much influence this idea, it makes sense to be objective in the validation of whether or not, "the Customer is Always Right".

In our experience, one of the most common escalations in retail environments is themed around the accuracy of a product price. Among other scenarios, at point of sale, if a cashier rings up given merchandise, and the item in question is listed at a different price than what a potential customer believes it was, an interaction will occur in which the listed price is either validated or invalidated prior to purchase. While technology has evolved to a point that a customer can check by their own means whether or not the price is accurate well before the point of sale...either by asking a floor associate, using verification devices that are often available in a lot of big-box, high sales volume retailers, or even through their smartphone or other portable device, we're going to refer to the prior-stated definition of 'right', in that any action will lean toward the favor of the customer. This is important as we believe it's fundamental to the spirit of the concept; though the customer in this scenario may be inaccurate in their determination of a price for whatever reason...even if it's an attempt to deceive...they believe that the price should not be what is recorded at point of sale and therefore they should purchase at their intended price.

In this scenario the resolution, theoretically repeated any given number of times, is probably equivalent to that of a coin flip depending on either front-line management or other policy mechanisms in place; that is to say someone with authority on the sales floor may just honor the customer's requested price, or it may be invalidated and disproven with no change or other action. Unless there are explicit guidelines around pricing that are upheld evenly and consistently, there's no guaranteed result in these situations. While it may speak to other operational issues, it's really hard to argue against the idea that "the Customer is Always Right", as depending on how one views the term 'favorable', this very action satisfies the following:

• The definition of "Right", as even through the validation of a price, the action leans toward the favor of a customer regardless of outcome.
• The definition of "Customer", as the individual is executing a transaction
• The definition of "Always", as within the scope of a transaction, if a price dispute arises, a response by the product or service provider will consistently follow

Replace a few terms and words to the example above and chances are that it would apply to almost all escalations. Given the outlined conditions, does a scenario exist that would invalidate this concept?

From a personal standpoint, one of the most infuriating escalations involve situations in which a potential customer flat-out lies with regard to requests and interactions for service. In an attempt to be as general as possible, I've witnessed situations where a potential customer requests or tells a floor associate co-worker to take a certain action, and in cases where it's not to a customer's accepted standard, the customer will escalate to front-line management, often without regard to any decorum or standard of behavior (i.e. they're loud, animated, and their language is often expletive-laden and unfiltered), and provide a completely different request that counters the initial one made. In the most disgusting of situations front-line management will completely discard the floor associate up to the point of termination of employment, while at the same time catering to the needs of the customer.

In these types of situations it is fortunate that both the modernization of retail and the occasional disclosure by society provide balance & fairness to situations such as these. Before we get into detail, let's validate the "Customer is Always Right" statement at value:

• The definition of "Customer", at the point of potential customer in the execution of a transaction
• The definition of "Always", as through the escalation a response will consistently follow
• The definition of "Right", as the reaction by a provider of a product or service will favor the customer (???)

Is there a possibility in which a reaction would not favor the customer? Depending on the nature of the escalation and the technology available to the provider of a product or service, mechanisms such as video camera footage, audio where available, and accounts of other floor associates could completely nullify the initial statements made by the customer. Additionally and where appropriate, other customer accounts, going as far as the posting of social media (think TikTok, YouTube shorts, Instagram Reels, etc.) can also completely invalidate any claim made. In extreme, edge-case circumstances, these responses may target the reputation of the customer both within and outside the scope of the transaction. While a lot of other social commentary can be made in these scenarios, and even though it was other customers and not the service provider directly that took certain action, by virtue of proximity the reaction of the product or service provider, through the actions of other customers, was adverse in nature and not favoring the customer, therefore invalidating the statement in its entirety.

Through all the scenarios and examples above, it's can still be said that "The Customer is Almost Always Right", as aside from the edge cases, there's still a purity in customer transactions and interactions...seriously, does the majority of society really want to make a customer transaction complicated? In that stream of thought it's not an out-there assumption to associate the simplicity of the catchphrase to its staying power in retail industry generally.

From our viewpoint, the caveat really lies in a given retail organization's business continuity potential. Even a birds eye view of the retail industry shows that there's significant shift in almost all aspects of retail and commerce...from how customers interact with brands, to supply chain considerations, to the details of pricing and inventory. In an ever growing complexity that exists to just keep storefronts open and people employed, how important is it to observe such an old idiom? While there's an ocean of answers depending on who is asked, our viewpoint is that the core consideration really needs to be something that goes beyond one being, and more toward an ecosystem of entities. With that, we propose the following as a potential replacement:

 

In honesty, it matters not if a customer is right or wrong. In the evolving space of retail there are too many dependencies to rely on one detail of an interaction...especially one subject to a lot of interpretation. That said, it's also important to acknowledge the fundamental role a customer executes in the business of retail and commerce; in other words, without a customer there is no business.

As we dig into specific topics of the retail industry, a common theme will be to weigh the relationship of customers and businesses. As such, we need some sort of fundamental mantra to consider, and given the outdated nature of a lot of ideas out there, it seems most appropriate to simply come up with our own. Is it accurate and of the times? Who knows? In any case, we'll stick to it as long as it remains relevant to the industry.