Talk:Prosumer/Archives/2015

Split into two separate titles, Prosumer and Prosumption

To me the term prosumer primarily refers to consumers who play an active part in the production of the commercial or non-commercial objects they may consume. This is becoming an increasingly prevalent activity in many sectors of the economy. The Linux operating system is a prime example in the programming world. Quirky and Threadless are prime example in the consumer goods industry. However of course for others the term prosumer is more connected to the idea of professional consumers (this was not the intended meaning in the original coining of the term). It does seem rather messy to have these two meanings squashed together in one article.

I suggest that this page be split and the production/consumption meaning be entitled prosumption (as this term is not typically confused with the 'professional consumer', and it was also used by Alvin Toffler in his book the Third Wave with the same meaning as his 'prosumer'). This is also the term used more recently in Macrowikinomics to refer to producer/consumer activities.

Additionally the page prosumer should provide a short definition of the alternative (and original meaning) linking to the page 'prosumption', and the page 'prosumption' should use the term prosumer exclusively for the meaning of production/consumption.

MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL THIS PAGE SHOULD NOT BE DELETED, prosumption as an activity is becoming an increasingly important and crucial component in commercial value production and the wider economy.

77.99.245.187 (talk) 10:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

YES, OF COURSE it should be two seperate words ... prosumption (one of the most important concepts in modern business) and just "prosumer" which is a type of digital camera. this is literally one of the worst pages on wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.91.25.221 (talk) 17:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Really needs splitting - but to what titles?

This article ABSOLUTELY needs splitting. One article for "prosumer" as a term for "high-end" products (current sense 2), and one for the producer-consumer meanings (current senses 1 and 3, and maybe 4). Senses 5 ("progressive consumer") and 6 ("prosumerise") are I feel NOT NOTABLE enough for an article of their own, only perhaps warranting a mention in other topics.

I would make the split, but the question is to what titles?. I'd like some advice on this. M0ffx (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. This section needs to be kept together;

"...The term has taken on multiple conflicting??? meanings: the business sector sees the prosumer (professional–consumer) as a market segment, whereas economists see the prosumer (producer–consumer) as having greater independence from the mainstream economy. It can also be thought of as converse to the consumer with a passive role, denoting an active role as the individual gets more involved in the process...."

They are not conflicting, they are conceptually related. While economists and "the business sector" may view them or define them differently, too bad, they are in reality often the same people. Indeed, both professional–consumer and producer–consumer do tend to be highly knowledgeable consumers active in designing, developing, producing or directing the end products and that market. This is particularly true in software and other ideas-based industries that do not require exclusive, specialized manufacturing equipment. These two definitions compliment and plump the general concept. In fact, I think replacing "conflicting" with "related" works better.

Agree that some of the other "definitions" might be be too obscure or rare to deserve mention. These need to be proven. Meanwhile, they complicate and confuse the paragraph they are in. They are so conceptually different they need their own paragraphs (...or as a list?).
--69.110.90.220 (talk) 16:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)Doug Bashford

"They are not conflicting, they are conceptually related" they are UTTERLY NOT conceptually related IN THE SLIGHTEST. it's really unfortunate that anyone thinks this.

The ACTUAL ETYMOLOGY of the trade term 'pro-sumer' is simply a merging of "professional grade" and "consumer grade".

This has utterly no connection, whatsoever, even vaguely, to the well-known business term "prosumption" introduced by Toffler, which indeed describes businesses such as Wikipedia, ATMs, tripadvisor, Facebook and more.

There is just not even the slightest relationship between a business term for a 20th centruy business model, and, a camera designation. It's profundly silly that anyone thinks they are related.

There would appear to be one or two editors who genuinely, truly unfortunately, think these two terms are in any way, at all , related. And you one or two editors JUST WONT GIVE UP. Can you please just let go and realise you're totally mistaken?

BTW note that the word "prosumer" for cameras, surely does not need a wikipedia entry. it's just a term you see in retail ads, like "discounted" or "imported". it's at best a dictionary entry.

24.42.191.195 (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

"Prosumerise" and Pet Definitions here

True it's a cute new word not found in 3/4 of the online dictionaries. However not every pet name thought up by some office manager, nor team leader, nor armchair posulator, nor health clinic gets to be in Wikipedia. Same with Amway (see prosumer- Urban Dictionary). Soundsgoodism and cleverness aint evidence. What's all this, ahem; "stuff" here?
Here's some real-deal definitions.
The reliable dictionaries and even netlingo are centered around an electronic device that is "in between" the consumer level and the professional model and also the type of person who buys that sort of device. (Such as the Canon Powershot camera.) A few dictionaries include professional buyer types. A few contain "producer and consumer." Time for a deletion party?
--69.110.90.220 (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)Doug Bashford

...so I rewrote the "General meanings" section. In the process I discovered several other pet definitions claiming to be the real deal. I wonder if we still have too many definitions? According to the most respectable of the dictionaries; yes. Needs more research. One publication seems to be attempting to brand the term as the new fad, as Goth, Hippie, Beatnic, Yuppie, Greenie GenX, Millinium Generation, Prosumer, like that.
--69.110.90.220 (talk) 10:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)Doug Bashford

I streamlined the intro as per above discussion. Requested proof not given. I removed the more obscure meanings. If re-inserted, their notability and wide-spread usage should be proven as per Wiki standards. I also made minor edits for clarity. I remain dubious about the so-called well educated "professional consumer," market-expert definition...it smacks of mere attempted artificial market segmentation, another brand target for advertising sales, newsletters, etc.
--68.127.87.182 (talk) 19:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)Doug Bashford

I wrote my dissertation on "prosuming marketing" , and the term "prosumer" is actually used in discussion, and as you indicated, it has several unrelated meanings. But I am new here and I don't know how to contribute -Michelstef (talk) 05:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)michelstef

Astounding newsflash. In English, you often get a few words spelled the same way that have NO RELATIONSHIP - they just coincidentally have the same or similar spelling. This is just not that unusual. left .. turn left, left behind. Duck ... quack duck, lower your head duck. It's incredible to have to point this out.

Regarding the business term "pro-sumption" you can trivially google "Toffler Prosumption" for the usual TED talks and the like on prosumption. This just has UTTERLY NO CONNECTION to the coincidentally similarly-spelled camera model designation "prosumer".

24.42.191.195 (talk) 19:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)