Mental Availability vs Postioning

Byron Sharp gets credit for making marketers care about mental availability. But he’s created a new confusion: thinking availability equals positioning.

They’re not the same thing.

Mental Availability = Probability of being thought of in buying situations

Positioning = Owning a specific concept in the mind

Mental availability asks: “When someone wants coffee, do they think of us?”

Positioning asks: “What do we uniquely mean when they think of us?”

Sharp’s research shows brands grow by being easier to think of and buy. Build distinctive assets. Maximize physical availability. Refresh memory structures.

All true.
All useful.

But here’s what it misses:

McDonald’s has supreme mental availability. You think of them constantly. They dominate convenience, value, and consistency, but these are table stakes in QSR, not owned concepts. They have breadth without distinctive depth.

In-N-Out has lower mental availability (limited geography, minimal mass advertising). But they own “quality” in fast food. Less available, stronger position.

The practical difference:

Mental availability gets you considered: “What coffee shops are around here?”

Position gets you chosen: “I need the artisanal coffee place.”

Mental availability = breadth of recall
Position = depth of meaning

Why this confusion hurts brands:

Companies chase availability metrics (awareness, recall, consideration) without establishing what they fundamentally mean. They optimize for being remembered without owning anything worth remembering.