It’s no secret that Hollywood likes to hype things. So do some businesses. And like the Hollywood types who just don’t deliver the goods on the screen or on the music charts, if a business fails to live up to the image their projecting, it can have serious consequenses.

Businesses that try to project an image, especially those that rely on advertising alone, often run into reputation problems.

A restaurant that says in ads that they have the best service in town, or the tastiest burgers, but don’t have either, may have lost their reputations (if they ever had claim to such a reputation.) How? They focused solely on projecting an image, rather than seeking a long-term reputation.

Many "image consultants" deal with the exterior view, and neglect things that may deeply affect one’s reputation.

They may advise a client to get a flashy office to project "success." But will it always have that effect?

A flashy office seems ‘right’ to many new business owners. It means they’ve arrived. But arrived where, exactly? If a new, two-partner law firm has furnishings that are far above those expected of someone in the firm’s practice area - and especially if they are young partners, just starting out - does that mean they are projecting a "positive" image that will lead to a positive reputation?

Instead, it may signal that they are taking money from shady clients, that they are young hotshots who can't handle money properly, that they are not careful with their backer’s funds, or that they are simply trying to compensate for their immaturity with flash, without the substance required to argue tough cases.

In another example, an elected public official living way beyond his means could signal the opposite of what he intended ("I’m successful") and could easily be interpreted a different way ("I’m corrupt and taking kickbacks.")

Now NONE of these perceptions may be actually true, but also realize that without a long-term reputation - and guidance along the way to build such a reputation - image may become a substitute for reputation, and it will be a poor substitute.

Dealing with one’s outward image alone is dangerous because it doesn’t address the underlying nature of reputation.

Another example, which will further stress the difference between reputation and image:

A new college professor comes onto a campus. On his first day, it would be absurd to say "In the four hours he’s been here, he’s gained a reputation for fairness from his students." Why? Because enough time had clearly not elapsed for that reputation to have been properly developed. The most that can be said is, "He sure projects a friendly image that students seem to like."

Over a few semesters, the professor maintain that reputation for being a great friend to students, but added to that may be a reputation for giving incredibly difficult final exams to prove he’s still ‘in charge.’

That said, he clearly would have had a reputation in his past job, and students, faculty and others may have gotten wind of it.

Ongoing perceptions may change the professor’s reputation in his new posting, however. Perhaps what was heard about his reputation was false. Perhaps he intentionally sought a new position to change how he did things and earn a new reputation (especially if he had a particularly negative reputation in the past.)

The good news about all this is that even a tarnished reputation can be changed into a reputation that reflects positive qualities, IF a program dedicated to changing reputation is put into place.