Corporate Reputation: What Happens Before Negotiations

Anyone who works at an agency—and not just them—has witnessed this scenario dozens (hundreds?) of times. A potential client shows interest, a brief is sent after an initial exploratory call, and a strategic proposal is prepared on time while staying within the specified budget (when one is provided). And then? Sometimes, silence. No formal rejection, no objections to the price, no requests for clarification on specific proposed activities. The contact simply seems to fade away.

Those who also work in business development are well aware of this dynamic and sometimes tend to attribute it to circumstantial factors: the budget was cut at the last minute (perhaps because higher-priority activities came up), the internal contact person has changed and is “bringing along former suppliers,” timelines have been extended because the board hasn’t made a decision yet, etc. 

Okay, there's nothing wrong with this analysis, but we rarely ask ourselves whether the decision had actually already been made in some way even before the conversation began.

If we really think about it, though, anyone who has ever been in the position of having to select a supplier knows how the process often works from the other side. 

Before making a final decision—even if the proposed service and pricing meet the guidelines—we try to truly understand whether this is the right vendor (one that will also be accepted by the managers to whom we must report that decision): so we (re)visit the website, read up on the company—perhaps on LinkedIn—ask a colleague (or even former colleagues) if they’re familiar with it, and look for interviews and publications (e.g., if I’m looking for a provider in the field of performance marketing, I can check marketing and communications publications to see if that agency has collaborated with well-known companies). 

The goal, therefore, is to understand what kind of reputation that potential supplier has.

Often, a five-minute search is all it takes to decide whether it's worth looking into further or whether it's better to just let it go—and it's precisely during that five-minute search that reputation comes into play. 

Very often, this happens quietly, without the supplier being aware of it, and leads to an outcome that is unlikely to be reversed in subsequent stages unless it is discovered that there is a discrepancy between the reputation that has been built and the actual facts.

It’s a mechanism that has long been studied and codified in the B2C sector: the consumer arrives at the point of sale with a decision that’s often already made, and the salesperson’s role is, in a sense, to confirm that the decision is sound—not to build it from scratch. In B2B, this same mechanism operates according to its own dynamics, because decisions involve more people, longer cycles, and an element of professional risk that B2C does not have. 

In fact, those who choose the wrong supplier not only lose money, but also jeopardize their internal credibility (and, consequently, their career path).

[Here, in fact, it’s worth taking a brief detour, reflecting for a moment, and acknowledging that a conversation with a founder or a CEO is different from one with, say, a CMO: very often, in fact, the—let’s call them—“hidden” objectives are different. The company’s best interests, certainly, but in the latter case, career advancement also plays a role.]

For this reason, the preliminary evaluation phase becomes even more selective, and the potential partner's reputation carries even greater weight.

Judgments are formed before contact is made

In the study “The New Reputation Economy”The survey we conducted in collaboration with AstraRicerche—which involved approximately 400 marketing, communications, and PR managers from Italian companies—provides clear quantitative confirmation of this mechanism.".

70% of respondents stated that their company would consider excluding a partner or supplier with a negative reputation. 64% actively prefer those with a good reputation. This means that reputation functions simultaneously as an exclusion filter and a selection criterion, and in both cases, it comes into play before the supplier has a chance to introduce themselves.

Let’s take a closer look at the difference between these two functions, because they reflect two distinct dynamics. Exclusion is a defensive act: a company that selects a supplier protects itself from the risk of partnering with an entity that could harm it. Preference is a decision-making act: all else being equal, the company chooses the supplier that offers the most recognizable sign of reliability. The first function acts as a binary filter—in or out—while the second acts as an accelerator: it does not guarantee the closing of the deal, but it shortens the process by reducing initial mistrust.

A concrete example helps clarify the scope of this phenomenon. Consider a manufacturing company that needs to choose a new logistics partner. Three proposals with comparable financial terms are on the table. A few months earlier, the purchasing manager read an interview with the founder of one of the three companies in an industry publication, in which the founder explained how he had addressed a critical issue in the supply chain during a challenging period. The purchasing manager knows nothing about the other two companies, other than what is written on their respective websites. The negotiations formally begin on equal footing, but the initial trust is already distributed asymmetrically. The partner with a recognizable media presence has the upper hand, because it has already passed the first stage of evaluation without having to do anything.

Trust is built where no one seeks it

If an opinion is formed before any contact takes place, the next question concerns where that opinion is formed. Our research offers an interesting insight in this regard: 62% of respondents acknowledge that an established presence on authoritative media platforms helps build trust among business partners more quickly.

This data should be interpreted carefully: trust is not generally attributed to visibility, a concept that, in the same study, ranks last among the eleven elements that define reputation (19%). It is attributed to a company’s presence in sources perceived as independent and authoritative: industry publications, specialized media, and editorial spaces where the company appears because it has something to say on a topic relevant to its market.

This raises a question regarding the very nature of credibility. Information carries different weight depending on its source. A company that reports its results on its own website is engaging in corporate communications: legitimate and necessary, but perceived by the reader as biased by definition. That same company, when cited, interviewed, or analyzed by an independent publication, receives a boost in credibility that the reader attributes to the publication, not to the company. The difference lies in the perception of the source’s independence: when the reader knows that the sender of the message is not the same as the subject being discussed, their natural resistance to persuasion decreases.

This principle is familiar to anyone who has studied the mechanisms of communication, yet in business practice it is often overlooked because owned channels are easier to control, faster to launch, and simpler to measure. A website can be updated in an hour, a LinkedIn post goes live in ten minutes, and a newsletter is sent out whenever you decide. Getting coverage in an industry publication takes time, relationships, and an editorial pitch that offers value to the journalist and their audience. The difference in effort is indeed real and tangible, but so is the difference in the impact on the trust of new audiences.

Proprietary channels and external editorial coverage serve complementary functions. The former build presence and familiarity among those who already know the company. The latter builds credibility among those who do not yet know it. Those who invest only in the former forgo the role that matters most in the period leading up to negotiations—precisely the stage where selection occurs most quietly and definitively.

A matter of process, not perception

Taken together, these observations suggest a shift in perspective for those involved in corporate communications in the B2B sector.

Reputation is not a static attribute that one either has or does not have. It is the result of a process that is built over time through deliberate choices: which topics to champion in the public debate within one’s industry, in which publications to establish a regular presence, and how frequently and consistently to build brand recognition among stakeholders who do not yet have a reason to seek us out.

Those who manage this process with awareness and consistency oversee a stage that directly influences business decisions, often before the sales department is even aware of it. Those who fail to oversee it allow that gap to be filled by others: competitors with more sophisticated communication strategies, fragmented information that potential customers find on their own, or simply silence—which, at the moment of decision-making, is tantamount to absence.

Thinking of reputation as a process also means accepting that its effects are not immediate. A single article in an industry publication does not change perceptions of a company, but a consistent editorial presence built over time—with coherent themes and a recognizable voice— does make a difference—because every time a potential stakeholder encounters a company’s name in an authoritative context, that encounter leaves a trace of familiarity that will build upon subsequent impressions they encounter. When the time comes to make a selection, that accumulation will make the difference between an unknown name and one they’ve already heard good things about.

The full study “The New Reputation Economy” is available for the Free download here. 

The next articles will explore the other topics covered in the study: the role of top management in corporate reputation, the relationship between measurement and governance, and the priorities identified by companies for the next eighteen months.