“Is Pepsi okay?” No. No, it isn’t. Ever.

I drink Diet Dr. Pepper. If Diet Dr. Pepper isn’t available at a restaurant, I order Diet Coke. Neither are as good as regular Dr. Pepper, I know, but I have to watch my girlish figure. Those of you who ask for Diet Coke at a restaurant that doesn’t sell Diet Coke are bound to have heard this timid question upon ordering: “Is Pepsi okay?” I’ll relate this to the Web later, but first, allow me to rant.

There are a few restaurants near the HCK2 offices where I’m asked this question. I repeatedly forget they don’t carry Coke products, and when I hear the Pepsi question, I just wince and say, “No thanks, I’ll have iced tea.” This question isn’t a dealbreaker for me and the restaurants—I frequent those places mainly for the food they serve.

However, this is a dealbreaker for me and Pepsi.

I get why this situation exists. It’s contractual. As a restaurant owner, you choose Pepsi or Coke products—in doing so, you get the perks offered by one supplier, spend less on product, take fewer deliveries. I get it. So why do I have a bias against Pepsi?

It’s a question of serving your audience. Pepsi holds about 30% of the fountain drink market. This is why fewer of you hear the question, “Is Coke okay?”

“Well, Benji,” you might ask, “shouldn’t you be frustrated with Coca-Cola as well, if they do the same thing?”

Nope.

If Coke holds such a vast majority share of the market, they are in a position of privilege. More people will naturally order their products at a restaurant and therefore Coke has the muscle to approach these places with contracts for exclusivity. Whether this is abuse of privilege or just a smart tactic to maintain market share is up for debate.

“Is Pepsi okay?” The question, when I hear it from the voice of a server, is always tinged with the expectation of refusal. “I hate to disappoint you, and I know you will be disappointed, but I have to ask if Pepsi is okay since we don’t sell the product you asked for.” This is because they know from experience only a third of you want Pepsi in the first place.

If Pepsi wants to increase its market share, contractual exclusivity is not the way to do it. The company puts themselves in a position of constantly disappointing the people they consider to be potential customers. This restriction is not the way to win over the public. Then again, look at the Pepsi logo… they don’t have a history of implementing ideas that people love.

So, let me relate this to the Web. In my example above, there are three parties: the supplier, the restaurant, and the patrons. By only choosing to serve Pepsi, a restaurant is making itself and the supplier happy, but wholly ignoring the satisfaction of its patrons, the people who keep the restaurant in business to begin with.

In the Web industry, we have clients, Web firms, and audiences. All too often, a client and Web firm will team up to launch a site that only makes the client and Web firm happy, but then completely ignores the needs of the audience. Then suddenly, the client is surprised that 70% of its audience is pissed off or unsatisfied.

A good Web firm works for the audience. Everything a client tells its agency should be questioned, not out of disrespect for the client, but out of respect for the audience. A good Web firm will remain objective and often flat-out disagree with the assessments of its own clients because it knows Web sites exist for the people that visit them, not for the people that commission—or design—them.

The success of a project, and of a client, depends first and foremost on how successfully the audience needs are addressed. It isn’t about what you want to serve. It’s about what your patrons want to drink.