Mark Ritson: Byron Sharp is wrong – of course brand perceptions influence sales

Byron Sharp’s recent claim that it is ‘impossible’ to place a value on brand perceptions is not just mistaken, it is a rejection of true scientific method.

mark ritson byron sharp

It’s fair to say no book has had more influence on marketing practice in the past decade than How Brands Grow. Professor Byron Sharp’s book is hardly a page turner, but inside its red cover exists a heady combination of insight, empiricism and contention.

The book’s biggest and most debated claim is unquestionably its challenge on target segmentation and Sharp’s call for “sophisticated mass marketing” to replace it in most, if not all, cases. His assault on one of the central tenets of marketing theory has continued to echo around conference venues and marketing departments. But it’s a noise that has also distracted marketers from spotting one of the other equally salacious claims contained in How Brands Grow.

LISTEN TO OUR PODCAST: Marketing Week Meets… Byron Sharp, author of How Brands Grow

Sharp is a fan of distinctiveness and goes to great lengths – I might add, persuasive ones – to make the case for using brand assets like colours and other graphical elements to stand out and better look like yourself to the customer. But that focus on distinctiveness comes at the expense of differentiation. Sharp questions “the importance of perceived and valued differentiation” and contends that distinctiveness – making a brand more easily identifiable – should be “at the centre of brand strategy”:

Any seasoned brand manager might prefer a greedier approach, in which distinctiveness and differentiation are equally potent and equally possible. That has certainly been my consulting experience. My long and lovely 15 years working with LVMH in Paris, for example, was founded on a belief that the 70-something brands I worked on during my tenure should focus on their DNA (the intended brand image we wanted to project) and their codes (the visual identifiers of the brand that we used to stand out and to claim mental saliency).

But Sharp is rarely a thinker who embraces plurality and nuance. The idea that mass marketing and target marketing can sit next to each other in an advanced, long-and-short-of-it brand plan is not something he countenances. Similarly, distinctiveness must be the “centre” of the strategy, rather than sitting with differentiation, for ultimate impact.

It is obvious that a significant amount of perception does drive behaviour in many purchase situations.

And that binary prioritisation was clear this week when he published a new blog on ‘Some inconvenient truths about brand image perceptions’. In the blog, Sharp questions marketers’ obsession with brand tracking and the ultimate value of changing how consumers perceive a particular brand versus the competition. Sharp does not question the ability of marketers to measure these things or for advertising to alter them, but he does challenge the value of increasing or decreasing them.

“The truth is,” he writes in his blog, “that we have practically no knowledge of how much particular perceptions affect behaviour – what is a tiny change worth? Anyone who claims otherwise is either lying (trying to fool you), or fooling themselves.

“Spider graphs, perceptual maps – none of them tell us how much any perception is worth.”

Sharp’s main contention hangs on the old caveat that correlation is not causality. If I survey all the marketers who have bought How Brands Grow and then compare them to marketers who have not bought the book I might observe a significant difference in their perception of the book on attributes such as rigour, applicability and value for money. I might infer from this data that if I can get more marketers to think it is rigorous, applicable and good value they too will buy the book.

Sharp’s point is that behaviour drives perception, rather than that perception drives behaviour. Buying the book triggers post-hoc rationalisation (‘it must be applicable and good value or I am an idiot’), as does subsequently reading the thing (‘it must be rigorous and applicable because Professor Sharp says it is here, here and here’).

Again, this is an extreme and oversimplified point of view. Clearly behaviour does influence perception but Sharp’s account does not explain what led people to buy the book in the first place. The distinctive red cover?

True scientists welcome debate

It is obvious that a significant amount of perception does drive behaviour in many purchase situations, and that this perception is then solidified and strengthened during post-purchase experience. People bought How Brands Grow because they perceived it was rigorous and applicable and good value, and that view was then bolstered by buying and (perhaps) reading it.

Clearly the importance of pre-purchase image perception varies greatly across different contexts. Higher-image categories like fashion are far more susceptible to image influence than, say, the purchase of industrial concrete.

Similarly, high-involvement purchases where price and risk increase (the purchase of a luxury handbag from Gucci for £3,000, for example) are more likely to entail pre-purchase image formation far more than lower involvement purchases (a £40 handbag from Zara). But arguing that pre-purchase brand perception is essentially impossible to value is ridiculous.

Sharp’s approach is defensive to the point of being blinkered and rhetorical.

There is a mountain of evidence from other scholars using other samples that the perception of a brand, prior to purchase, influences the degree to which they will consider it, prefer it and ultimately buy it. The name Koen Pauwels might not be as familiar as Sharp’s but he is a brilliant advanced marketing professor based at Northeastern University. Pauwels won the Marketing Science Institute’s Best Paper award for a study that demonstrated that both attitude surveys and online behaviour measures are useful to explain and predict future sales.

Pauwels can show, with data, that brand perceptions not only change but that these changes result in measurable and significant changes in sales. In a current research paper he shows this happening with 76 brands across a range of different categories.

Pauwels can show this is partly causal and not simply a post-purchase correlation because, unlike Sharp, he uses longitudinal data. Rather than compare a purchaser and a non-purchaser of How Brands Grow at one point in time, Pauwels follows consumers over a period of time to see if their earlier shift in perception (‘I now think the book is more rigorous’) results in a subsequent change in behaviour (‘I bought it 30 days after my opinion changed’).

This week he openly refuted Sharp’s claim that it is “impossible” to quantify how particular perceptions drive sales: “I don’t see how the truth is served by Byron Sharp’s unfounded and absolute claim,” he concluded in a blog. Sharp’s blog is “nonsense” and “pseudo-science”, according to Pauwels.

He is right. Sharp goes too far, too often. And when he presents his opinion as scientific fact and, more concerningly, a significant proportion of his rabid devotees nod their heads and make copious notes of this, the profession of marketing is hindered, not helped. We owe a great debt to Byron Sharp for the way he has provoked and prodded our discipline to be more disciplined. For that he will go down as one of the greatest marketing thinkers of all time. But his definition of “scientific” method is naïve at best, and dangerously self-serving at worst.

When other scholars post contradictory evidence-based conclusions, often from much more robust samples of data, he either rejects them on methodological grounds (his response to Dunnhumby’s empirical refutation of his loyalty work was that their sample was “flawed”) or he simply shuts up shop and closes the debate down.

This is not science. Scientists embrace debate and counter-argument because, ultimately, no theory can be permanently proven. We simply adopt the explanation we cannot disprove and if we do eventually falsify it we move on and evolve our understanding of the world. Proper scientists don’t reject qualification and refutation, they welcome it.

Indeed, they look for it because in proper science falsification delivers a positive outcome. As the greatest scientist of the last 100 years, Richard Feynman, put it: “We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.”

This is clearly not how Professor Sharp approaches his work or his “scientific” method. His approach is defensive to the point of being blinkered and rhetorical. It’s his way or the “unscientific” highway. Again, let me reiterate that I regard him as one of the greatest marketing thinkers and someone I will always turn to for advice and insight. But he who wields the sword of science must expect the blade to cut both ways.

When you dismiss others with your data, you should stand ready to have your own work treated with the same empirical contempt. You should welcome it. Sharp can be wrong like the rest of us. He often is. But his influence and impact mean his mistakes have more bearing than your average marketing numpty.

Read his books, savour the insights and the perspective but sprinkle a heavy dose of sceptical salt on every page. Absolutes sit uneasily in the ever-changing, heterogeneous world of marketing.

More importantly, ignore Sharp on measuring and valuing brand image. It is not his epistemological forte. Working out which attributes you want to stand for, which ones you want to grow, which you want to reduce and whether – a year from now – you have achieved your ends, are among the most worthwhile and valuable activities a marketer can ever commit to.

A previous version of this article suggested Professor Byron Sharp blocked Professor Koen Pauwels on Twitter, following his rebuttal of Professor Sharp’s blog, to avoid critical scrutiny. We are happy to acknowledge Professor Sharp did not block Professor Pauwels on Twitter as a result of Professor Pauwels’ rebuttal. Professor Pauwels had already been blocked by Professor Sharp prior to his article, but has since been unblocked.  



There are 17 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Byron Sharp 16 Aug 2018

    Well I’ve clearly hit a nerve when Mark Ritson has to refer to Philosophy of Science (not his forte). I hope people will look past the personal remarks made in this column and read what I actually wrote. Please make up you own minds about the cautionary note I wrote about interpreting brand image data.

    • Billy Ryan 16 Aug 2018

      Happy to concede causality is to varying degrees ‘two way’ here.

      However, most research agencies can segment their response base into customer vs non-customer (assuming the brand is a sufficiently large player). So notwithstanding sampling issues, this specific problem is pretty easy for any brand with a meaningful research budget to overcome.

  2. Tadas R. 16 Aug 2018

    Nobody likes to be robbed of their truth.

  3. Josh Samuel 17 Aug 2018

    Great post, completely agree with your defence of the need to seek to influence and measure image perceptions. I made some similar points in a far softer and less entertainment way (but with some extra references to some of the evidence) here:

  4. Gord Hogg 17 Aug 2018

    Behavior is nothing more than you acting out your beliefs. If you don’t belive in being healthy you’ll never stop smoking. And your perception of smoking cessation ads will fail to move you. Gotta side with Mark on this one.

  5. Gerben Busch 17 Aug 2018

    I did read Byron Sharpe’s blog and the perception that pops to mind is that he takes it from a traditional old skool advertising angle. Moreover, we all know that traditional market research is strongly biased and therefore unreliable. We’re in a lucky position, though, that in today’s world we can actually measure behavior and, using AI, retrieve correlations based on historic behavior of people with similar ‘track records’. And yes, of course there is a correlation between perception and behavior, where behavior is brand engagement in general, not necessarily making the actual purchase.

  6. Mahesh K Enjeti 17 Aug 2018

    Differentiation and Distinctiveness are not the two ‘D’s on ‘opposite’ ends of the soccer field. Pity that two ‘sharp’ marketing minds are being ‘ritzy’ in this manner (puns totally intended).

    They say science is an objective discipline but scientists are not (objective, that is). Because scientists pursue a hypothesis doggedly until they are proven wrong :). Is that true?

  7. steve howell 17 Aug 2018

    It’s all a load of tosh.

  8. Pete Austin 17 Aug 2018

    All science is pseudo-science to some degree, because we can never be sure that future experiments may not falsify what we currently believe. This is not difficult to understand.

    So anyone who claims they are 100% correct about “science” is either ignorant, or else acting as a marketer while claiming to be a scientist and therefore dishonest. In either case their claims about ‘science’ should be ignored.

  9. Paul Paxton-White 19 Aug 2018

    My enduring memory of Byron will be his unwillingness to take questions after his sermon on how brands grow. I do agree with the majority of what he says, but his desire to be the smartest person in the room stifles any serious discussion.

    • Byron Sharp 20 Aug 2018

      ??? I take questions all the time. My last seminar for a sponsor had more than an hour of questions. What an odd thing to say.

  10. Tim Williams 19 Aug 2018

    I’m reminded that in the midst of the 18th century ‘Enlightenment’ progress in medicine was severely constrained by the tendency for extremely experienced and intelligent academics to become wedded to competing ‘systems’ of thought. In a quest for certainty and universal truths they often simply failed to notice the evidence that challenged their world view.

    Any attempt to describe the relationship between how brands measure customer perceptions and how those customers really think and act, has to accept that we’re not dealing with repeatable ‘scientific’ formulae that will always result in the same outcome. We are also faced with a challenge about language – marketers talk about customers in terms of ‘loyalty’, ‘satisfaction’ and ‘perception’ etc. as hard metrics, whereas for customers these are words used to describe often vague feelings.

    There are simply too many variables at play resulting in often counter-intuitive findings which raise fascinating questions about cause and effect. For example why, in some organisations, do ‘satisfied’ customers leave and ‘dissatisfied’ ones stay? Is ‘satisfaction’ something that causes brand loyalty – or does repeated behaviour itself cause customers to become more satisfied? Have we got the concept ‘motivation’ all wrong – is it generated as a result of behaviour rather than a precursor of it?

    Ultimately all brands are seeking customer loyalty but there is no definitive scientific (or even magical) formula for achieving this (or even an agreed definition of what loyalty is).

    The only sure thing is that each brand has to find their own formula.

  11. Jo-Ann Osipow 19 Aug 2018

    Byron Sharp has made an important contribution to marketing, which makes it disappointing for me to see him break his own rule of using robust data approaches to develop conclusions. His post about brand perceptions appears top-down rather than empirically bottom-up, i.e., Sharp wants brand perceptions to fit in with the rest of his theory so does a force fit that results in hurting his credibility.

    • Byron Sharp 20 Aug 2018

      Please read the post again. It doesn’t say what Mark Ritson says it says. What it does say about our knowledge of brand image perceptions is also discussed in Chapter 5 of How Brands Grow (see the “my mum’ empirical pattern) and in far more detail in the Consumer Behaviour chapter of our textbook. The empirical evidence is large, and goes back decades.

  12. Phil Barden 20 Aug 2018

    I didn’t read Byron’s blog as saying that brand image and differentiation are unimportant; he seems to be questioning how much a perception of X is worth.
    Brands only exist in the brain, as networks of associations. Those associations are built based on all of our experience (‘what fires together wires together’), whether that is ‘received’ from e.g. advertising or from personal experience. The key is whether those associations are relevant to purchase or not. Byron’s paper (link from Mark’s article) asks people whether Subway is ‘unique’ and ‘different’ vs KFC etc. Yes it is but so what? The same people buy both brands (so they’ll probably also score well on ‘meets my needs’). As marketers we need to get behind this superficial level. People buy based on whether a brand fits a ‘job to be done’, which changes with context (situation, occasion etc) and which is a combination of functional and social/neuropsychological ‘goals’. Many of these goals are implicit, hence explicit research methods are invalid (e.g. we measured the top 4 skincare brands globally and found, like Byron, low levels of perceived differentiation – at an explicit level. However, there were significant differences at the implicit goal level which explained brand shares).

    • Neil Simpson 24 Aug 2018


      Sharp is asking “what is a tiny change worth [in brand perception]?’

      He doesn’t dismiss measuring brand perception (see his second sentence). He also says “attitudes also affect buying ‘ and vice-versa.

      So far this all agrees with Pauwels.

      Sharp’s point is that if you measure perceptions of a brand what does it *mean* for sales? Say you’ve got a 3% increase in being seen as ‘community orientated’, how many sales does that result in? Can you effectively plan against that change in perception?

      (So far at least, the answer seems to be “no’.)

  13. Ryan France 23 Aug 2018

    Really important point in that last post, and oft overlooked in this debate. To restate: if brand’s influence at an implicit level, then explicit research methods (such as those referenced in How Brands Grow) are invalid – thus will fail to find meaningful differences between brands that can explain behaviour. If I’m using a speed gun to measure temperature change, and find nothing, I can’t conclude that temperature changes don’t exist. I clearly don’t have the right measurement instrument for the job (a thermometer might help!). There are ways and means to get at the implicit meaning in brands, and bring it into view for marketers to manage – consistently, and distinctively.

Leave a comment


Discover even more as a subscriber

This article is available for subscribers only.

Sign up now for your access-all-areas pass.

Subscribers get unlimited access to unrivalled coverage of the biggest issues in marketing and world-renowned columnists, alongside carefully curated reports and briefings from Econsultancy. Find out more.

If you are an existing print subscriber find out how you can get access here.

Subscribe now

Got a question?

Contact us on +44 (0)20 7292 3703 or email

If you are looking for our Jobs site, please click here

Subscribers get unlimited access to unrivalled coverage of the biggest issues in marketing and world-renowned columnists, alongside carefully curated reports and briefings from Econsultancy. Find out more.

If you are an existing print subscriber find out how you can get access here.

Subscribe now