In a recent LinkedIn post, James Hurman discusses the concept of “mental availability,” a marketing theory that has gained traction in recent years. Hurman expresses reservations about the concept’s practical utility and the empirical evidence supporting it, suggesting that marketers may benefit from alternative frameworks.
Questioning the Foundation of Mental Availability
Hurman begins by acknowledging the theoretical soundness of mental availability, stating that it “holds water” intellectually. However, he quickly pivots to his primary concerns regarding its real-world application. A significant point of contention for Hurman is the quality of data underpinning the concept.
“But the data to support it is sketchy at best.”
According to Hurman, the empirical backing for mental availability is not robust enough to warrant its widespread adoption. This lack of strong data, coupled with the concept’s inherent complexity, poses significant challenges for marketers seeking to measure and implement it effectively. As Hurman points out, the laborious nature of measuring and implementing mental availability renders it “kinda useless at a practical level for marketers.”
Limitations and Superior Alternatives
Beyond the data and measurement issues, Hurman highlights what he perceives as fundamental limitations of the mental availability framework. He argues that the concept fails to adequately explain nuanced brand choices that occur in the marketplace. Specifically, it doesn’t account for why brands with similar levels of mental availability might be preferred over one another, nor does it explain instances where brands with lower mental availability are chosen over those with higher availability.
“Plus, it’s limited. It doesn’t explain why brands with similar mental availability get chosen over one another, or why brands with less mental availability get chosen over brands with more.”
Hurman references questions posed by Alex Alexandrov in a related piece as pertinent to these limitations. While not outright rejecting mental availability as a concept, Hurman believes that the marketing field possesses other, more established, and demonstrably effective tools.
Rethinking Marketing Effectiveness Frameworks
In his assessment, Hurman suggests a need to look beyond mental availability for more actionable insights. He concludes his post by asserting his belief in alternative approaches:
“I’m not opposed to mental availability as a concept, but I think we have better. more proven and more useful marketing effectiveness concepts.”
This perspective from James Hurman invites a broader discussion within the marketing community about the efficacy and practical application of theoretical frameworks versus empirically validated, actionable strategies. His critique underscores the ongoing need for marketing concepts that are not only theoretically sound but also practically measurable and demonstrably effective in driving business outcomes.
📝 About This Content
This article is based on insights shared by James Hurman on LinkedIn.
📅 Originally posted on July 6, 2026 | View original post on LinkedIn →