MENTAL AS ANYTHING

In the world of ornithology, a seemingly innocuous question about classifying the Hoatzin, an unusual South American bird, as a ‘living fossil’ sparked a debate amongst boffins that dragged on for nearly a decade. This semantic squabble consumed an inordinate amount of academic energy, resulting in a flurry of papers, heated conference presentations, and even some professional cold-shouldering among researchers. The controversy centred on whether the term should apply only to species unchanged for millions of years or could include animals with unique evolutionary histories. After years of back-and-forth, the ornithological community finally agreed to use more precise terminology, effectively sidestepping the contentious label altogether. This true story demonstrates academia's tedious tendency to get bogged down in definitional disputes, often at the expense of the real issue. Interesting factoid: Hoatzins are primarily folivores, meaning they eat leaves as the central part of their diet. They are the only birds known to have this specialised diet. To digest this leafy diet, they have a unique digestive system similar to cows.?

I wouldn’t dare to get into academic semantics. Still, in the interests of the rest of us, some claims being made by Associate Professor Felipe Thomaz, of the University of Oxford’s Sa?d Business School in Mi3Australia to promote his presentation at the Sydney SXSW shill-fest need to be taken with a rather large pinch of salt.

Thomaz first makes a pretty unconvincing straw man of the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute line on media reach. He suggests that optimising media for reach alone no longer works because all reach is not equal. As if anyone has ever claimed either of those things to be true. Even entry-level trainee media planners are clued up on this.?

But the big clanger I want to take issue with is his frankly extraordinary claim that ‘concepts like ‘mental availability’ are not featured in academic theory, at least at the highest levels [within] journals that have the strictest peer review requirements.’ What?

On the contrary, some seriously extensive psychology and neuroscience research supports the concept of mental availability. Cognitive science has long studied related concepts such as memory retrieval, associative networks, and priming effects. These areas of research provide robust evidence for the mechanisms underlying mental availability. Studies on spreading activation in semantic networks, the availability heuristic, and the mere exposure effect all contribute to our understanding of how brands become easily retrievable in memory. Neuro research using techniques like fMRI has identified the neural pathways involved in brand recall and recognition. The principle of mental availability aligns absolutely with cross-discipline established theories of memory formation and retrieval, making it one of the most thoroughly researched and empirically supported concepts in cognitive science.

Maybe Thomaz just couldn’t think of any examples when asked, so I’ve put together a little consumer psychology primer.

Mental availability absolutely aligns with our understanding of cognitive processing and memory. Our brains evolved to conserve energy, often relying on mental shortcuts (heuristics) when making decisions. Brands that are mentally available require less cognitive effort to recall, making them more likely to be chosen in purchasing situations.

This works with human nature and natural selection; our brains evolved to form these associative networks for efficient information storage and retrieval. From an evolutionary standpoint, that humans developed the ability to recognise and recall important information and ignore the rest would have been adaptive - a reproductive and survival benefit.

Our brains evolved to recognise patterns for predicting outcomes and making quick decisions. Consistent brand messaging and distinctive assets contribute to mental availability by creating recognisable patterns that our brains can easily process and recall. And as social animals, we evolved to look to others for cues on how to behave.??

In situations of high cognitive load (stress, time pressure, me in the supermarket), we tend to rely more on familiar, easily accessible information. Mental availability ensures a brand is easily recalled in these common purchasing scenarios.

(Before anyone gets semantic with me about 'retrieval' or 'storage' as metaphors - memory is essentially reconstruction involving the activation and reassembly of stored memory fragments rather than the replay of a complete, unchanged record of events. The process is influenced by things like the strength of neural pathways, contextual cues (CEPs ftw!), and current mental and emotional states. Once fragments are retrieved, the brain actively reconstructs a coherent memory by utilising pre-existing knowledge and filling in gaps based on beliefs, etc. While far from perfect, it's good enough for efficient memory function and the ability to generalise, enabling us to remember even when specific details are lost.)

And don't even get me started on attention again.

In short, it might be worth Thomaz taking a stroll over to the psychology building and looking at their library to see if those retrieval cues can jog his memory.

By the way, in a malodorous twist of evolution, the Hoatzin also earned the dubious moniker 'stinkbird' by developing a digestive system so potent that it transforms these leaf-munching avians into flying fermentation vats, assaulting the nostrils of all who dare approach with an unholy stench reminiscent of a fusion between rotting vegetation and freshly laid cow dung.

I'll let your associative memory fill in the last line of this post for yourself.