The article uses the terms "brand" and "prestige" in a way that I personally found confusing. To me a brand is an identity, and prestige is whether that brand/i

The article uses the terms "brand" and "prestige" in a way that I personally found confusing. To me a brand is an identity, and prestige is whether that brand/identity is seen in a positive way. But here's how the article defines them: > Brand as a deliberately crafted, sustained narrative that is actively known about you. You don’t have to research Google engineering to have an opinion about Google engineering. In your career and as an engineering leader, you will likely be given the advice that it’s very important to build a brand. > Prestige is the passive-awareness counterpart to brand. Rather than being what someone actively knows about you, it’s what someone can easily discover about you if they look for it. Many interviewers won’t know anything about me, but a few minutes of research will find my writing, conference talks, and work history. This is more about whether whether one has built an identity that is "actively" or just "passively" known, and they're arguing that being passively known is just as good as actively known. Which I tend to agree with, not everyone can be a household name, nor needs to be. And it's overkill to market yourself to an extent that everyone actively knows who you are, even as an executive. But it's a weird way to define the terms.