Rindova, Williamson, Petkova, Sever 2005 (AMJ) — reputation is bidimensional: perceived quality ("being good") vs prominence ("being known"); prominence drove price premium

Claim: Rindova, Williamson, Petkova, and Sever (2005), "Being Good or Being Known," established empirically (in US business schools) that reputation is bidimensional:

• Perceived quality — what informed stakeholders believe about the organization's ability to produce quality
• Prominence — how often the organization comes to mind, driven largely by the choices of influential third parties

Prominence contributed significantly to price premium; perceived quality contributed differently.

Source: Rindova, V. P., Williamson, I. O., Petkova, A. P., & Sever, J. M. (2005). Academy of Management Journal 48(6), 1033–1049.

Confidence: Verified.

For Candid — translation to trades:

• In-group reputation = perceived quality among informed peers (other GCs, suppliers, inspectors, peer-coach cohort members, HBA committee members). Highly specific, hard to fake.
• Market reputation = prominence among end consumers (Google reviews, Houzz "Best of" badges, regional advertising presence, BBB stars). General, easier to manipulate.

For 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.

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.