Talk:Consumer/Archive 1

Illustrations and Photographs
Would anyone object to me changing the photo to something more professional? This one is less illustrative than vain and creepy. --Revaaron (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Go for it; I totally agree about the current illustration .-- Kubigula (talk) 19:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Same goes for the new photo. No disrespect intended, but also has an unprofessional look to it, something snapped as a user and his wife left the mall. I'll work on finding suitable replacements, along with captions per Captions. --Revaaron (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Misc
I wonder where the first use of this term was? i dont know aey .. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.65.43.254 (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup needed
There is some good information in this article, but it clearly needs citations and some organization. Right now it reads more like a loose collection of unconnected information. Kubigula 02:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Got rid of a lot of links, does that warrant a removal of cleanup tag? Onionmon 20:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Good job. I also just did some cleanup, so that I agree that the tag can go.  Looking at the information that was in the article, it seemed logical to separate the discussion between the economic and legal notions of "consumer".  I think it flows a bit better now - though it still needs expansion and more citations. -Kubigula (ave) 16:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Spelling
I understand that spelling can be a thorny issue in WP, but I think it's jarring to change the internal link in an article to "mass customisation", which then links to "mass customization". So, I think the spelling in the article ought to remain as it was for two reasons - (1) the wikilinks lead to article that use ize instead of ise; and (2) WP:MOS suggests that the dialect of the first major contributor should be followed. --Kubigula (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, If you want to suggest dialect neutral word choices, I would certainly be willing to work on that.--Kubigula (talk) 17:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It links to "mass customization", because that was created first, not because it is correct. Standard rules, non North American article or reference use Standard English. "Snorkel | Talk" 17:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting it's correct or incorrect; it simply is. I'm a reasonable guy and I want to want to follow/reach a consensus.  After you made the change, I looked to see if there was some guideline as to which dialect should be used for non-regional specific articles.  The only thing I could find was the the MOS suggested that regional specific articles should use the appropriate dialect and otherwise you basically follow the choice of the first major contributor.  Not much of a system, but that's all I could find.  Do you know of any other guidelines/policies addressing spelling choices?  Seems like this would come up a lot.--Kubigula (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Calzolari's comment on this article
Dr. Calzolari has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

"- This initial sentence "In economic systems consumers are utilities expressed in the decision to trade or not." has no meaning!

- This sentence "The consumer is the one who pays to consume goods and services produced." is not precise. There are instances in which consumers use services or goods but they do not pay. For example this is often the case in two-sided markets, such as broadcasted TV, free newspapers, or any public good (in economic sense).

- early versions of this article referred to consumers in economics (optimal consumers' choice with limited resources). These may be resumed and added to complement."

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Calzolari has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:


 * Reference : Calzolari, Giacomo & Ichino, Andrea & Manaresi, Francesco & Nellas, Viki, 2012. "When the Baby Cries at Night: Uninformed and Hurried Buyers in Non-Competitive Markets," CEPR Discussion Papers 8856, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 15:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Economic Theories
Could someone who knows something about the topic add a discussion of the term's relevance in different economic theories? E.g., Does it make sense to talk about "consumers" under communism / collectivism? Does "consumer" imply capitalism? etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.202.213 (talk) 03:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I might take a stab at that. I would think we could put in two economic systems and describe the consumer in both. First, a consumer in the free market is free to make choices which are the primary force in what producers produce. Second, consumers in a communist system are seen as final users of the production, but their choices are irrelevant to the producer. The communist ideal within the government is the real force which drives production, not consumer choice. The role of the consumer in a free market system is much more impactful to producers.

thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coachhull (talk • contribs) 20:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Not very good article
I am though that this article is not good because we have to known about consumer and how the consumer cheated from shopkeeper but not about shopkeeper Suman samanta (talk) 14:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)