市場類別作為消費者降低資訊處理成本的認知捷徑，其歸屬界定對品牌評價具有決定性影響。當企業在母類別正當性尚未確立之際，貿然推行跨類別創新，往往引發受眾的身份辨識困難，進而導致系統性的「正當性折價」（Illegitimacy Discount）。本研究以台灣菸酒公司（TTL）旗下 OMAR 威士忌為核心個案，採質性個案研究設計，透過深度訪談與三角驗證，探討類別跨越（Category Spanning）情境下，訊號配置時序對品牌正當性建構之影響機制。
研究發現，OMAR 在母類別歸屬尚未穩固之際，即推出荔枝桶、梅子桶等風味桶產品，致使消費者產生類別歸屬混亂、價值感知落差與口碑傳播困難等三項核心問題。身份模糊所引發的認知負荷，不僅壓縮了品牌的溢價空間，更使早期市場敘事難以凝聚。為回應上述挑戰，品牌採取「先錨定、後跨越」的策略轉折：第一階段藉由參與國際烈酒競賽取得金牌認證，強化母類別正當性；第二階段則透過信任轉移機制、專業風味語言建構及意見領袖（KOL）敘事動員，重新推廣風味桶創新。
本研究之理論貢獻在於補足類別跨越文獻中對「母類別歸屬建構過程」與「訊號時序依賴性」的忽視，並揭示高專業受眾在類別建構中所扮演的共同生產者角色。於實務層次，本研究提出具操作性的策略推進原則，創新唯有奠基於穩固的正當性基礎之上，方能有效轉化為市場價值，而非淪為品牌身份的偏離訊號。

Market categories serve as cognitive shortcuts that allow consumers to reduce the cost of processing market information. Through categories, consumers are able to interpret unfamiliar products, compare alternatives, and form expectations regarding quality, value, and brand identity. However, because category membership strongly shapes consumer judgment, the way in which a brand is classified can have a decisive influence on its market evaluation. When a firm attempts to introduce cross-category innovation before its legitimacy within the parent category has been firmly established, audiences may experience difficulty in identifying what the brand is, what it represents, and how its products should be evaluated. This ambiguity may further result in what can be described as a systematic “illegitimacy discount,” in which the brand’s perceived value is reduced not because of inferior product quality, but because consumers are uncertain about its categorical identity and legitimacy.
This study takes OMAR Whisky, a brand under Taiwan Tobacco and Liquor Corporation (TTL), as its focal case. Drawing on a qualitative case study design, this research investigates how the sequencing of signals affects the construction of brand legitimacy under conditions of category spanning. Data were collected through in-depth interviews and further examined through triangulation in order to enhance the credibility and interpretive robustness of the findings. The case of OMAR provides a valuable context for examining category spanning because the brand emerged from a state-owned enterprise historically associated with mass-market alcohol products, while simultaneously attempting to enter the premium whisky market and introduce innovative products that crossed conventional category boundaries.
The study finds that OMAR introduced flavored cask products, such as lychee cask and plum cask expressions, at a relatively early stage, before its parent-category membership as a legitimate whisky brand had become sufficiently stable in the minds of consumers. Although these products were innovative and reflected local Taiwanese characteristics, their introduction also generated several unintended consequences. First, consumers experienced confusion regarding the brand’s category membership. Rather than interpreting OMAR simply as a Taiwanese whisky brand, some consumers found it difficult to determine whether these products should be understood as serious whisky expressions, flavored spirits, local specialty products, or experimental novelties. Second, this categorical ambiguity produced a gap in value perception. Because consumers lacked a clear evaluative framework, the brand’s attempt to command a premium price was constrained. Even when the product itself possessed distinctive flavor characteristics, consumers were not always able to translate such distinctiveness into perceived value. Third, the unclear category identity made word-of-mouth communication more difficult. Consumers and market intermediaries struggled to explain the brand’s position in simple and persuasive terms, which weakened the coherence of early market narratives.
These findings suggest that identity ambiguity increases consumers’ cognitive burden. When consumers are unable to quickly locate a brand within a familiar category structure, they must spend additional effort interpreting the meaning of the product. This additional cognitive load can reduce confidence, delay evaluation, and lower willingness to pay. In the case of OMAR, the ambiguity surrounding its flavored cask products not only compressed the brand’s price premium but also made it more difficult for the market to form a stable and favorable collective understanding of the brand. Innovation, therefore, did not immediately translate into market value. Instead, when introduced before sufficient legitimacy had been established, innovation risked being interpreted as a deviation from the expected identity of the brand.
In response to these challenges, OMAR gradually shifted toward a strategic approach that can be summarized as “anchoring first, spanning later.” In the first stage, the brand sought to consolidate its legitimacy within the parent category of whisky. One of the most important mechanisms was participation in international spirits competitions. By winning gold medals and receiving recognition from external professional institutions, OMAR was able to send credible quality signals to the market. These awards functioned as legitimacy anchors. They helped consumers and trade audiences recognize OMAR not merely as a state-owned alcohol brand from Taiwan, but as a whisky producer capable of meeting international standards. Through this process, the brand strengthened its basic categorical legitimacy before asking consumers to accept more unconventional product innovations.
In the second stage, after the parent-category identity had become more secure, OMAR was better positioned to reintroduce and promote its flavored cask innovations. At this stage, several signaling mechanisms became especially important. First, the brand relied on trust transfer. Once consumers had accepted OMAR as a legitimate whisky brand, the credibility accumulated through its core products and international awards could be transferred to more experimental expressions. Second, the brand developed a more professional language for describing flavor. Rather than presenting lychee cask or plum cask products merely as novelty items, the brand and its supporters began to frame them through whisky-specific vocabulary, emphasizing maturation, cask influence, aroma structure, balance, and sensory complexity. This professionalized discourse helped reposition flavored cask products as legitimate whisky innovations rather than category deviations. Third, the brand mobilized key opinion leaders and knowledgeable enthusiasts to participate in narrative construction. Through tasting events, reviews, social media discussions, and expert explanations, these actors helped translate the meaning of OMAR’s innovations for broader audiences.
The theoretical contribution of this study lies in its extension of the category spanning literature. Existing research has often emphasized the risks and benefits of spanning multiple categories, but has paid relatively less attention to the process through which parent-category membership is first constructed. This study argues that category spanning cannot be fully understood without considering the prior establishment of categorical legitimacy. In particular, the findings highlight the importance of signal sequencing. The same innovative signal may produce different outcomes depending on when it is introduced. If cross-category innovation is introduced before the brand has secured legitimacy in its parent category, it may be interpreted as confusing, inconsistent, or illegitimate. However, if similar innovation is introduced after the brand has already established a credible categorical foundation, it may be interpreted as creative differentiation, local distinctiveness, or premium experimentation.
This research also contributes to the understanding of audience roles in category construction. High-expertise audiences, including whisky enthusiasts, professional reviewers, bartenders, retailers, and opinion leaders, do not merely receive brand signals passively. Instead, they act as co-producers of legitimacy. Their interpretations, evaluations, and narratives help shape how broader consumers understand the brand and its innovations. In markets where products require specialized knowledge, such as whisky, these expert audiences play a particularly important role in reducing uncertainty and translating unfamiliar innovations into meaningful value propositions.
At the practical level, this study offers actionable implications for firms pursuing category-spanning innovation. Firms should not assume that innovation itself will automatically be perceived as valuable. Before introducing products that cross category boundaries, managers must first assess whether the brand has acquired sufficient legitimacy within its core category. If the parent-category foundation remains weak, innovation may increase ambiguity rather than differentiation. A more effective strategy is to first establish clear category membership through credible signals, such as awards, expert endorsements, quality certifications, and consistent core-product narratives. Only after this foundation has been built should firms expand toward more experimental or hybrid offerings.
In conclusion, the case of OMAR Whisky demonstrates that innovation must be built upon a stable foundation of legitimacy. Cross-category innovation can become a source of market value only when consumers understand the brand’s basic identity and trust its competence within the parent category. Without such legitimacy, innovation may be misread as an identity deviation and may trigger an illegitimacy discount. By showing how signal sequencing shapes the relationship between category spanning and brand evaluation, this study provides both theoretical insight and practical guidance for firms seeking to transform innovation into sustainable market value.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Connelly, B. L., Certo, S. T., Ireland, R. D., & Reutzel, C. R. (2011). Signaling theory: A review and assessment. Journal of Management, 37(1), 39–67.
Cudennec, A., & Durand, R. (2023). Valuing spanners: Why category nesting and expertise matter. Academy of Management Journal, 66(1), 335–365.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of management review, 14(4), 532–550.
Granqvist, N., Grodal, S., & Woolley, J. L. (2013). Hedging your bets: Explaining executives' market labeling strategies in nanotechnology. Organization science, 24(2), 395–413.
Hannan, M., Pólos, L., & Carroll, G. (2007). Logics of Organization Theory: Audiences, Codes, and Ecologies. In.
Hsu, G. (2006). Jacks of all trades and masters of none: Audiences' reactions to spanning genres in feature film production. Administrative science quarterly, 51(3), 420–450.
Hsu, G., & Hannan, M. T. (2005). Identities, genres, and organizational forms. Organization science, 16(5), 474–490.
Hsu, G., Hannan, M. T., & Koçak, Ö. (2009). Multiple category memberships in markets: An integrative theory and two empirical tests. American Sociological Review, 74(1), 150–169.
Kennedy, M. T. (2008). Getting counted: Markets, media, and reality. American Sociological Review, 73(2), 270–295.
Kovács, B., & Hannan, M. T. (2010). The consequences of category spanning depend on contrast.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago and London. In: The University of Chicago Press.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. sage.
Lounsbury, M., & Glynn, M. A. (2001). Cultural entrepreneurship: Stories, legitimacy, and the acquisition of resources. Strategic management journal, 22(6‐7), 545–564.
Navis, C., & Glynn, M. A. (2010). How new market categories emerge: Temporal dynamics of legitimacy, identity, and entrepreneurship in satellite radio, 1990–2005. Administrative science quarterly, 55(3), 439–471.
Navis, C., & Glynn, M. A. (2011). Legitimate distinctiveness and the entrepreneurial identity: Influence on investor judgments of new venture plausibility. Academy of management review, 36(3), 479–499.
Negro, G., Hannan, M. T., & Rao, H. (2010). Categorical contrast and audience appeal: Niche width and critical success in winemaking. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(5), 1397–1425.
Paolella, L., & Durand, R. (2016). Category spanning, evaluation, and performance: Revised theory and test on the corporate law market. Academy of Management Journal, 59(1), 330–351.
Pontikes, E. G. (2012). Two sides of the same coin: How ambiguous classification affects multiple audiences’ evaluations. Administrative science quarterly, 57(1), 81–118.
Pontikes, E. G., & Kim, R. (2017). Strategic categorization.
Porac, J. F., Thomas, H., Wilson, F., Paton, D., & Kanfer, A. (1995). Rivalry and the industry model of Scottish knitwear producers. Administrative science quarterly, 203–227.
Rao, H. (1994). The social construction of reputation: Certification contests, legitimation, and the survival of organizations in the American automobile industry: 1895–1912. Strategic management journal, 15(S1), 29–44.
Rao, H., Monin, P., & Durand, R. (2003). Institutional change in Toque Ville: Nouvelle cuisine as an identity movement in French gastronomy. American journal of sociology, 108(4), 795–843.
Rosa, J. A., Porac, J. F., Runser-Spanjol, J., & Saxon, M. S. (1999). Sociocognitive dynamics in a product market. Journal of marketing, 63(4_suppl1), 64–77.
Rosch, E. (2024). Principles of categorization. In Cognition and categorization (pp. 27–48). Routledge.
Santos, F. M., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2009). Constructing markets and shaping boundaries: Entrepreneurial power in nascent fields. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), 643–671.
Spence, M. (1973). Job Market Signaling. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(3), 355–374.
Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of management review, 20(3), 571–610.
Vergne, J. P., & Wry, T. (2014). Categorizing categorization research: Review, integration, and future directions. Journal of Management Studies, 51(1), 56–94.
Wry, T., Lounsbury, M., & Glynn, M. A. (2011). Legitimating nascent collective identities: Coordinating cultural entrepreneurship. Organization science, 22(2), 449–463.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (Vol. 5). sage.
Zuckerman, E. W. (1999). The categorical imperative: Securities analysts and the illegitimacy discount. American journal of sociology, 104(5), 1398–1438.