Sharp vs. Schrieber: Is This Marketing Feud Still Relevant?

It was the ultimate showdown: Sharp vs. Schrieber. Two camps on keys to marketing-led growth, each armed with data, vying for brand-building supremacy. But here’s the thing … the world’s changing. We at Davies Meyer have taken a closer look and want to share our thoughts with you.

Professor Byron Sharp’s Ehrenberg-Bass model hammered home a hard truth: consumers aren’t always obsessed with your brand; they’re “cognitive misers.” (Can we get that on a mug?) Means: We usually try to make a good enough decision (satisficing) rather than the perfect decision (optimising). In this analysis loyalty is a characteristic of human decision making rather than something ‘inspired’ by a brand – simply because it saves time and reduces risk. Sharp‘s school of thought says go wide with penetration strategies, own those category entry points, and make your brand mental available, i.e. impossible to forget.

Jared Schrieber’s growth flywheel, though, was all about understanding the moments that matter instead of focusing on customer acquisition and loyalty. Occasions, culture, influencers, the perfect time to buy, setting yourself apart – these were his weapons of choice. Repeat buyers should be prioritized, since they drive revenue disproportionately over time. According to Schrieber, this is more efficient than Sharp’s approach of investing in high-reach marketing and targeting light consumers instead.
 

So, here’s the question: In today’s fast-paced, hyper-connected world, is picking a side even necessary or is AI about to blow up this whole debate? We will go into this in our next article, which will appear here in the coming days.