When Marketing Science Becomes a Religion – Why The Ehrenberg-Bass Model Is Useful, But Incomplete

There’s a cult-like thing happening in modern marketing. Only last week, I met with four different marketing professionals discussing the same ideas.

A set of ideas—originating from Australia, backed by serious data, and popularized by Byron Sharp and the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute—has quietly crossed the line from useful theory into untouchable dogma. One person called it the new marketing religion, which I think was fitting.

Question it and you’re told you “don’t understand the data.” Disagree and you’re accused of being “unscientific.”

After all, it’s evidence-based. How do you argue with science?

But I will. Not to say that the model and the evidence is wrong, but I'll claim it is incomplete. And treating an incomplete model as a complete explanation for brand growth is not just sloppy—it’s dangerous.

I am saying this because I've heard the model and theory explained by clients of the institute, people who that treat it like a complete model for brand-building and marketing. And that's where it becomes gets dangerous, and I think we'll see a lot of mediocre marketing from the leaders who apply this model. Why? Read on.

Let's Start With Mental and Physical Availability. Fancy Language For Awareness And Distribution, Or Something Different?

In the Ehrenberg-Bass model, mental availability means how easily a brand comes to mind in buying situations (memory structures, category cues, recall), while physical availability means how easy it is to actually buy the brand (distribution, shelf presence, formats, channels, frictionless access). In plain terms, it’s awareness plus distribution (my interpretation). That matters — but it’s not enough. Awareness explains recall, not desire. Distribution explains access, not preference. You can be easy to think of and easy to buy and still be easy to ignore if the brand lacks meaning, emotional resonance, or relevance to who people are and what they value. Availability gets you considered. It does not explain why you’re chosen.

Let’s Start Where We Agree

Brands need reach. Mental and physical availability matter (Reach, Awareness + Distribution).

But here’s where things go off the rails: this model is now treated as a full explanation of why people choose brands.

It isn’t.

Perhaps this is because they focus only on "growth through marketing", with a focus on advertising and distribution - not brand-building.

While the theory explains how to find your brand on the shelf, it does not explain why people put it in their basket. The model does not deal with the WHY behind choice, and that is the starting point of all commerce. You have to get chosen for a sale to take place.

Availability Explains Access. Not Motivation.

At the heart of the Ehrenberg-Bass worldview is a simple assumption:

People don’t think much. They notice what’s easy. They buy what comes to mind.

Does that seem right to you? Not to me.

I am sure this works reasonably well in low-involvement categories like toothpaste, soap, toilet paper, and other basic FMCG staples.

Low identity. Low emotional load. Low status. People don't care all that much.

But stretch that logic across all categories, all brands, and all human behavior—and it collapses.

Because people don’t choose brands just because they remember them.

Awareness does not equal choice.

I know a lot of brands. Some really well. But it does not make me want to buy them. And I am sure you would agree.

People choose brands because those brands feel like the most relevant choice given:

• who they are
• what they value
• what they’re trying to achieve
• what they want to avoid
• who they want to become
• the given information and perception they have

Mental availability tells you if a brand was noticed. It tells you nothing about why it feels right.

People Don’t Choose What Comes to Mind. They Choose What Fits.

No one walks into a store thinking:

“Which brands are most mentally available to me right now?”

They already have preferences. They already have habits. They already have emotional histories with brands.

Those didn’t come from salience alone.

They came from:

• trust
• consistency
• lived experience
• identity alignment
• emotional memory

You can argue about the word loyalty if you like. Fine. Retire it.

In fact, I agree. People are not loyal to brands, they are loyal to themselves and they buy brands that are relevant to what they want - over and over again, until the brand fails them, or their preferences change (due to value shifts, age, life situation, tech innovation, etc.)

But preference, habit, affinity, and repeat choice absolutely exist.

Pretending otherwise is academic convenience—not reality.

The Heavy-User Blind Spot

One of the most problematic implications of the Sharp doctrine is the quiet dismissal of heavy users.

Yes, the average buyer buys very little. Yes, penetration matters.

But averages are a dangerous drug.

Anyone who’s ever looked at a P&L knows the 80/20 rule still bites:

• a minority of buyers drive a disproportionate share of volume, margin, and advocacy

To suggest that deeply understanding and serving these people “doesn’t matter” is… odd.

In a recent interview, I heard Byron say that the average Red Bull consumer buys 1-2 cans once every year or two, and that they should market to them for more penetration (finding more of those consumers). Those consumers would bring in less than $10 dollars per year...how is that sustainable from a ROI perspective?

What about those that bring in hundreds per year?

And besides, what kind of branding and marketing do you create when focusing on these people who are not passionate about your category?

That's not how Nike did it, and many other mega-brands. Instead, they ignited the category, they brought new energy, reframed a space by over-investing in a micro-segment (pro athletes). They represent a fraction of the market, but the energy, inspiration, and passion halos down to the 99.99999 of consumers that buy the non-technical T-shirt they use to watch sports from their couch.

What if Nike had marketed to the couch people? How would they have won?

From a growth perspective, ignoring your most valuable customers is like: watering the edges of the field while the center is on fire.

Recruit new buyers, absolutely. But if you don’t deepen relevance with the people who already choose you often, you’re leaking value.

Growth isn’t just about who enters the funnel. It’s about who stays, who returns, and who pays more willingly.

I know it's dangerous to argue against "evidence". But please show the evidence. We need context. To propose that you should market to nearly everyone (given your limited resource) is dangerous advice. Again, maybe if you are selling toothpaste.

The Missing Dimension: Meaning

This is where the model really struggles.

It doesn’t explain meaning.

Meaning explains why:

• Patagonia can charge more
• Apple wins with “me-too” products
• Nike stays culturally dominant
• certain food, fashion, wellness, and lifestyle brands punch far above their share of voice

People don’t just buy functionality. They buy signals. Shortcuts. Stories. Identity.

Mental availability doesn’t explain:

• aspiration
• values
• cultural alignment
• emotional reassurance
• identity reinforcement

Yet these are the very things that drive pricing power, preference, and resilience over time.

Byron claims "no one gets excited about their bank", and that distinction, not differentiation is the way to go.

That's sloppy.

When someone re-energizes a category, or creates a new frame, and new sub-category, people actually do "love" the brand. Or perhaps they don't love it, but they like it enough to choose it over and over.

Before Apple started selling computers in fancy retail stores like high-design and fashion, computers were sold in boring, ugly, over-stuffed stores that smelled of arm-pit.

Steve Jobs re-framed the category - he re-created it. And don't tell me people were not loyal, or that people did not flock to buy more frequently. Ask me how I know. I've spent six figures on Apple products (mostly because I owned a strategy and brand consultancy, but way too much also as a consumer).

When Science Turns into an Excuse

The real danger isn’t the research.

It’s how it’s used.

Too many marketers now hide behind “the science” to justify:

• bland creative
• meaning-free brands
• mass messaging with no point of view
• underinvestment in product, experience, and culture

If your entire growth strategy is “be seen more,” you’re already in trouble.

Because visibility without relevance is just noise.

Growth Comes From Choice. Choice Comes From Relevance. Relevance Comes From Human Motivation.

Here’s the frame I use:

Every growth problem is a choice problem. Every choice problem is a relevance problem. Relevance is rooted in human motivation.

People choose brands that feel:

• more useful
• more aligned
• more meaningful
• more trustworthy
• more for them

Availability gets you considered. Relevance gets you chosen.

The future of brand growth isn’t about picking sides between science and story.

It’s about integration: reach and meaning salience and substance availability and relevance

You can have all the mental availability in the world.

If your brand doesn’t matter to people, it will still be the easiest one to ignore.

What are your thoughts?

To be clear, this is not an attack at the fine work of Byron Sharp and the institution he leads. I am sure they do wonderful work.

I wrote this to say the model is incomplete as a model for brand-building and growth - mostly because it falls short to explain what drives growth.

This is my take on how their work has been interpreted by many marketing leader, and the dangers of forgetting the most important fact - all growth comes from choice, and mere mental and physical availability does NOT explain WHY people make the choices they make.