In-group vs market reputation — for trades, in-group ("being good") dominates market ("being known"); applied translation of Rindova et al.

Claim (applied translation of [[rindova-2005-being-good-vs-being-known]]):

• In-group reputation lives in HBA dinners, peer-advisory rooms, supplier counters, certification cohorts, and committee work.
• Market reputation lives in Google reviews, Houzz "Best of" badges, BBB stars, regional billboards.

For high-ticket residential and ICI work, in-group dominates market. Three reasons (see [[why-in-group-dominates-three-compounding-mechanisms]]): the credence-good problem, loss-averse buyer cognition, and low-frequency vendor selection.

Confidence: Verified theoretical distinction (Rindova et al.); Industry-consensus on in-domain application.

For Candid — operational consequence:

• Google reviews are a hygiene factor — necessary but not sufficient. The work of accruing in-group reputation cannot be substituted by accruing market reputation, and pretending it can is a strategic mistake.
• Operations targeting in-group reputation (named speaking slots, peer-cited case studies, audit-verifiable credentials, HBA committee work) compound over time. Operations targeting market reputation (lead-gen ads, mass-channel SEO targeting homeowners, BBB and Google star management) do not compound in the same way — they require continuous spend and produce hygiene, not differentiation.

Operationalized as: [[rule-reweight-marketing-portfolio-toward-in-group-accrual]].