{"id":1145,"slug":"rindova-2005-being-good-vs-being-known","title":"Rindova, Williamson, Petkova, Sever 2005 (AMJ) — reputation is bidimensional: perceived quality (\"being good\") vs prominence (\"being known\"); prominence drove price premium","kind":"reference","scope":"business","status":"current","audiences":["kevin","candid-team"],"topics":["psychology-aversion","trust-repair","signalling-theory"],"reference_body":"**Claim:** Rindova, Williamson, Petkova, and Sever (2005), \"Being Good or Being Known,\" established empirically (in US business schools) that reputation is **bidimensional**:\n\n- **Perceived quality** — what informed stakeholders believe about the organization's ability to produce quality\n- **Prominence** — how often the organization comes to mind, driven largely by the choices of influential third parties\n\nProminence contributed significantly to price premium; perceived quality contributed differently.\n\n**Source:** Rindova, V. P., Williamson, I. O., Petkova, A. P., & Sever, J. M. (2005). *Academy of Management Journal* 48(6), 1033–1049.\n\n**Confidence:** Verified.\n\n**For Candid — translation to trades:**\n\n- **In-group reputation** = perceived quality among informed peers (other GCs, suppliers, inspectors, peer-coach cohort members, HBA committee members). Highly specific, hard to fake.\n- **Market reputation** = prominence among end consumers (Google reviews, Houzz \"Best of\" badges, regional advertising presence, BBB stars). General, easier to manipulate.\n\nFor **high-ticket residential and ICI work** in Ontario, in-group reputation dominates market reputation because the buying decision is structurally informed by peers rather than by end-consumer prominence signals.\n\n**Related foundational reference:** Fombrun (1996), *Reputation: Realizing Value from the Corporate Image* (HBS Press), framed reputation as an aggregated stakeholder construct rather than a unitary asset.","rationale_body":null,"metadata":null,"links":{"outgoing":[{"slug":"research-brief-trust-networks-in-group-reputation-may-2026","title":"Research brief: trust, referral networks, and in-group reputation in Ontario's trades economy (May 2026 — Foundation Brief #3)","kind":"reference","scope":"business","link_type":"relates-to"}],"incoming":[{"slug":"in-group-vs-market-reputation-trades-distinction","title":"In-group vs market reputation — for trades, in-group (\"being good\") dominates market (\"being known\"); applied translation of Rindova et al.","kind":"reference","scope":"business","link_type":"depends-on"},{"slug":"opacity-specificity-tradeoff-reputation-channels","title":"Opacity-specificity tradeoff — in-group reputation is information-rich + opaque to outsiders; market reputation is transparent + information-poor","kind":"reference","scope":"business","link_type":"depends-on"},{"slug":"rule-reweight-marketing-portfolio-toward-in-group-accrual","title":"R2 — Reweight marketing portfolio toward in-group reputation accrual; reduce reliance on homeowner-targeted lead-gen and agency-directory listings","kind":"rule","scope":"business","link_type":"depends-on"}]},"created_at":"2026-05-25T13:34:11.165Z","updated_at":"2026-05-25T13:34:11.165Z"}