In short: according to Byron Sharp ("How Brands Grow", 2010) brand growth depends on two levers, mental availability (the probability the brand will be recalled in a need situation) and physical availability (how easily it can be purchased). Brands that win stand out by working on both in parallel. The squared rule: a doubling in mental + a doubling in physical = quadrupled market share. For Italian SMEs, gap-by-gap diagnosis is a prerequisite to allocate marketing budget.
Operational definitions
Mental availability is the propensity of a consumer to notice, remember and think of a brand in a category purchase situation. It is not simply "awareness" (knowing the brand) nor "preference" (preferring it), but the probability of brand recall in a specific moment of need (Category Entry Point).
Physical availability is the brand's distributive presence at the points where the consumer looks or could find it. It includes weighted distribution (in retail), shelf prominence, e-commerce search ranking, presence in relevant marketplaces, geographic coverage.
Sharp formalises the concept in "How Brands Grow" (2010) and Romaniuk operationalises it in "Building Distinctive Brand Assets" (2018). The framework comes from 50 years of Ehrenberg-Bass research on consumer behavioural panels in 30+ countries.
The squared rule: the brand multiplier
Sharp documents an empirical rule: when a brand doubles mental availability while keeping physical availability constant, market share grows by about 30-50%. When it doubles both, market share grows much more (multiplicative effect). Working on only one is a weak lever; working on both is the pattern of brands that win (Coca-Cola, Mars, Galbusera, Esselunga).
The most common strategic mistake in Italian SMEs: investing heavily in brand advertising (mental) without sorting out distribution (physical), or vice versa. Result: the investment is perceived but sales remain stagnant.
How to measure mental availability
Three operational metrics:
(1) Mental availability score (Romaniuk). Survey of 200-500 target consumers. For each Category Entry Point (CEP) of the category, ask "Which brands come to mind?". Calculate the brand's share of mind across total CEPs. High-MA brand = associated with 4-6 CEPs. Low-MA brand = associated with 0-1 CEPs.
(2) Brand search volume (Google Search Console + Ahrefs). Growth in branded searches over time is a quantitative proxy for mental availability. For SMEs: monthly tracking of "brand name" + variations (e.g. "brand name reviews", "brand name website"). Lift > 20% YoY = effective mental availability building.
(3) Aided and unaided recall (classic survey). Aided: "Do you know this brand?" → % awareness. Unaided: "Which brands of [category] do you know?" → % spontaneous recall. Unaided is the critical KPI for mental availability.
How to measure physical availability
(1) Weighted distribution (retail). Percentage of points of sale weighted by revenue that sell the product. Strong FMCG brands reach 70-95% weighted distribution; emerging brands 20-40%. Measured by NielsenIQ, Circana, IRI panels.
(2) Share of shelf. Percentage of space dedicated to the brand on category total. Above 15-20% in key retailers = competitive physical availability.
(3) E-commerce findability. Average position of the brand in category searches on Amazon, Google Shopping, marketplaces. Top 5 results = high findability; page 2+ = problem.
(4) Geographic coverage. For services: percentage of target territory served (provinces covered / total). For e-commerce: countries served, shipping cut-off.
SME diagnosis: where am I losing mental or physical?
Audit framework in 4 steps:
Step 1 — Measure current mental availability. Survey 200 target consumers (Toluna/Cint panel, cost €1,500-3,000) or proprietary panel via DM/email. CEP-based questions: "When you need [category need], which brands do you think of?". Calculate share of mind for brand vs competitor.
Step 2 — Measure current physical availability. Distribution audit (visits to 30-50 PoS or NielsenIQ data if available for the category), Amazon/Google Shopping search audit on category keywords, geographic coverage map.
Step 3 — Identify the main gap. For each CEP, calculate: mental availability % vs market share %. If MA < market share = under-advertised brand (mental gap). If MA > market share = mental brand but under-distributed (physical gap).
Step 4 — Allocate budget to the gap. 60-70% of incremental budget to the main gap. 30-40% to maintenance of the other lever.
Examples: how big brands operate
Amazon — both maximised. Mental: top-of-mind for "buying online" in 80%+ of Italian consumers. Physical: nationwide 24-48h shipping, integrated marketplace. Continued investment in both with TV brand campaigns (mental) and capillary logistics (physical).
Galbusera (Italian SME case). Mental: multi-year brand campaign "Galbusera, una vita di gusto" + Steve McCurry visual storytelling = consolidation of well-being association. Physical: capillary distribution in mass retail + specialised retail. The Galbusera case is documented as an Italian brand growing on both levers.
Typical local brand (negative case). Brand known in a limited area, good product, weak distribution beyond its territory. High local mental availability, low national physical availability. Result: stagnant revenue despite quality and local awareness. Solution: incremental investment 80% in physical (retail expansion, marketplaces, direct e-commerce), 20% in advertising to maintain mental in the historical territory.
Activity table per lever
| Mental Availability | Physical Availability |
|---|---|
| TV brand campaigns | Mass-retail weighted distribution expansion |
| Event sponsorship | Amazon/marketplace presence |
| Distinctive Brand Assets | Shelf placement negotiation |
| Brand-driven content (not SEO-driven) | Category-level SEO (being found) |
| PR and media coverage | D2C e-commerce setup |
| Brand purpose campaign | Logistics and shipping coverage |
| Influencer brand collaboration | In-store activation |
KPI dashboard for an SME CMO
Monthly (tracking): brand search volume (Google Search Console), share of voice in advertising (Nielsen Ad Intel if available), Amazon BSR per category.
Quarterly (deep dive): aided/unaided awareness on 200 respondents, top-5 CEP coverage, weighted distribution audit (10-20 key PoS).
Yearly (strategic): full brand health tracker (Romaniuk methodology), market share evolution, share of wallet evolution.
FAQ
Is mental availability the same as brand awareness?
No. Awareness is abstract knowledge of the brand ("I know this brand"). Mental availability is the probability of recall in a specific purchase situation ("I think of this brand when I have [need]"). A brand can have high awareness and low mental availability (e.g. iconic brand no longer in purchase thoughts) — Sharp gives examples in the book.
How much budget should I allocate to mental vs physical?
It depends on the gap. Diagnose first, budget after. The typical starting value for mature FMCG is 50/50 on maintenance, 70/30 on the main gap for aggressive growth. For B2B services: 60/40 to mental (sales meetings + brand presence) vs physical (geographic coverage + reachability).
How do you work on mental availability with low budget?
Three low-cost levers: (1) consistent Distinctive Brand Assets (logo, colour, tagline, sound); (2) PR/earned media (trade press, sector podcasts, published case studies); (3) content that activates specific CEPs (blog optimised for category informational queries, not just brand-driven).
Does mental availability work for B2B too?
Yes. B2B CEPs are purchase triggers: "new product launch", "declining revenue", "CMO change", "annual audit". Brands that have built mental availability for these CEPs are the first to be called when the moment arrives. This is exactly the enterprise "top of mind" mechanism.
Pure e-commerce: does physical availability make sense?
Yes, but it translates to: position in marketplace searches (Amazon top 3), shipping speed, geographic coverage, integration with standard payment tools, findability via Google Shopping/Bing Shopping. It is "physical" in a digital sense: where and how easily the buyer can complete the transaction.
Romaniuk vs Sharp: what's the difference?
Sharp published "How Brands Grow" 2010 (theoretical framework). Romaniuk ("Building Distinctive Brand Assets" 2018, "Better Brand Health" 2023) has operationalised the concepts into measurable metrics (CEP coverage score, DBA audit, MA score). For practitioners: Romaniuk is more operational, Sharp is the foundational theory.
Sources and references
- Sharp, B. — "How Brands Grow: What Marketers Don't Know" (2010, Oxford University Press)
- Sharp, B. & Romaniuk, J. — "How Brands Grow Part 2" (2015, Oxford University Press)
- Romaniuk, J. — "Building Distinctive Brand Assets" (2018, Oxford University Press)
- Romaniuk, J. — "Better Brand Health: Measures and Metrics for a How Brands Grow World" (2023)
- Ehrenberg-Bass Institute — Category Entry Points framework and research papers
- Binet, L. & Field, P. — "The Long and the Short of It" (IPA, 2013)
- NielsenIQ Retail Almanac — weighted distribution metrics
- Google Search Console — brand search volume tracking
- Aaker, D. — "Building Strong Brands" (1996, Free Press) for related brand equity framework
