The reason a new category needs a new word

A product that does not fit an existing category is described as “like X but for Y.” Every comparison invites the expectations of X, which the product was not built to meet. The description is accurate in one dimension and misleading in every other.

What everyone sees

Naming looks like a late-stage decision — something marketing does after the product exists. The possibility that naming is what creates the category, and that without it the product is perceived through the wrong lens, is less intuitive.

What is actually happening

Lakoff described categories as structured by prototypes: a new item without its own category is assigned to the nearest prototype and judged against it. Sujan showed that consumers classify products into existing categories and evaluate them by the standards of those categories. Rosa and colleagues argued that market categories are socially constructed through discourse, and that a new label is what allows a product to be evaluated on its own terms rather than as a deficient version of something else. Without a name, the product has no prototype of its own.

Why it stays hidden

The cost hides because the analogy feels helpful in the short term. “Like X but for Y” is immediately legible, and the product gains early attention. The penalty arrives later, when the expectations of X produce disappointment that has nothing to do with the product’s actual performance and everything to do with the category it was filed under by default.