This paper integrates two approaches – the “categorization as a theoretical tool” and the “typicality judgment” – which both emphasize audience confusion as a mechanism through which category spanners become devalued or ignored. However, the two perspectives differ in their specification of why confusion will likely lead to devaluation or ignoring. In this study, we consider the interplay of these two approaches in the setting of corporate law market. We find that spanning product categories has a U-shaped relationship with perceived clarity of law firm identity. While none of the two perspectives alone can explain our findings, they can do so together.