Mentally available FOR WHAT?

Mental availability is a simple enough concept.

It’s the chance of a brand coming to mind in a particular buying situation.

No one would argue that increasing that probability could be bad.

But what actually is it?

Mind if I peer into your mind?

The leading argument around is that it’s the outcome of a ‘cued retrieval link’.

There’s a link in your brain between two things, ‘nodes’.

One is that situation you’re in. Where you are, when it is, who you’re with, what else you’re doing or having and why you’re there.

This is, roll of the drums, the Category Entry Point. ‘Category’ may not always be the best word, but what matters is that it’s a measurable point in space and time.   

If a brand wants to come to mind at that point, it needs to be linked to it.

Then it needs something to cue that link, which is where Distinctive Brand Assets come in.

So the end result is you can retrieve that brand from your memory. And sometimes, with a fair wind, that will end up with you choosing that brand.

Put this all together and you have a beginner’s guide to Associative Network Theories, the Grand Designs of memory.

Except there are other theories.

One of them is that memory in buying situations is goal-driven.

To be more accurate, it’s ‘goal-directed memory reactivation’.

It’s partly based on the idea that memory isn’t static like a hard drive, it’s dynamic, rebuilt in the moment.

And if psychology plays any role at all in marketing, then at some point you have to acknowledge implicit goals. I still call them deeper needs.

We all know these hidden drives are there. I may need to buy some wine to take to a friend, but do I want to impress them or thank them for their generosity or make sure everyone’s happy with my choice or provide a conversation starter or what the hell, let’s have one more bottle?

Of course, it may be that mental availability is a proxy for implicit goals. It's certainly easier to measure if you’re relying on surveys and panel data.

It may also be that all the various theories of memory have some truth to them. The complete explanation is still forming.

The problem is that memory theories like cued retrieval and goal-driven reactivation are hard to disprove.

So what we really need here is a falsification test.

How about this?

Take two brands with matched mental availability. If mental availability is the whole story, they grow and defend share at the same rate. If they are anchored in different implicit goals and one of those goals is stronger, that brand should outperform the other, even at identical mental availabilities.

So either it is all about coming to mind, pop and it’s there.

Or it’s about coming to mind because that’s the one.

Anyone know a research institute that might be willing to take this on?