

The real reason people are mocking Color... - awicklander
http://www.projectidealism.com/2011/03/real-reason-people-are-mocking-color.html

======
dexen
Could we please stop writing about Color? As in, just drop the curtain of
silence and be done with it? The less buzz there is about it, the sooner it'll
be gone from popular consciousness.

But should we generate too much buzz, it may become self-sustaining :-(

Btw., perhaps the 41mln investment isn't just about providing necessary
funding, but also about giving people 41 million reasons to generate even more
buzz?

~~~
geoffw8
From my previous comment:

Everyone whose on this "are we still talking about color" thing is starting to
get on my nerves. Theres still LOTS of mileage in it - more write ups, VC
opinions, yada yada.

Its how the world works. They just raised $41m, one of the largest pre-launch
rounds. Expect to hear about them. Saying "are we still talking about color"
doesn't make you cool. Nobody cares if your "over it because your so hooked in
to the tech scene".

If you don't want to read about it, don't click on the link.

~~~
dexen
Look, I care about great products and services. That's connected with strong
competition. In this case, the company/product/service is close to becoming a
celebrity thanks to very high blog & press coverage. Which artificially raises
the bar to competitors, basically sky-high.

I lack any blogging experience; if I had any, I'd try to give some counter-
coverage, to promote competitors.

I _regret_ not making that reasoning clear in the original post.

------
replicatorblog
Reid Hoffman had a great line at the last Startup School to the effect of
"Most mainstream web users can remember 7 +-2 web services. If this is true
(and I believe it is) $500K on domain names is not a bad investment for a few
reasons:

1\. Easy to say/spell. I work for a startup where I have to spell the name of
the company every time I talk to someone. We are a medical company so its not
a big marketing issue, but having to explain your site is Colr.com or
TheColorApp.com instead of just "Color" will impede consumers.

2\. It makes you seem like a real company with the resource to own a short,
properly spelled name rather than yet another creatively spelled SocNet. Talk
to some non-early adopters and you'll see how important this can be.

My take is that most people are mocking the amount of money being spent on
what is initially seen as a photo sharing service rather than a platform that
will allow people to quickly assemble social networks of real life friends. in
different contexts.

~~~
jasonkester
That'd be true if we weren't talking about an iPhone app that users will
install without ever actually going to the web site behind it.

    
    
      1st User Experience:
      - open App Store
      - search for "Color"
      - install
    
      2nd - nth User Experience:
      - click the "Color" button on your iPhone
    

Notice how we never visit the actual site. TheColorApp.com would work just
fine for them.

~~~
rch
Only true if they planned to exit on the app alone. Maybe the plan is
ambitious enough to warrant the expense.

In unrelated news: a friend of mine casually referred to her boss as a 'green'
on Saturday... apparently it is the result of popular personality test that
everyone in the company has to take. The result (one or more 'colors') is part
of their email signature for internal correspondence.

~~~
replicatorblog
Totally Agree. I think photo sharing is a classic "Thin Wedge" that Dixon and
Wilson have written about before. Think about how powerful Color could be:

Business Networking - Go to a conference and create an ad hoc social network.
You are basically automating what Fridge and Lanyrd are doing now.

Neighborhood Social Networking - Need to organize a carpool or soccer practice
schedule? Moms can set up a network with their phones while sitting in the
stands watching their kids play.

Same for schooling, retailing, and dozens of other opportunities where you
might want to let people communicate then sell them stuff. If nothing else it
might be so it is easier for advertisers to remember and more easily access
the self serve ad mechanisms the founders described.

I could see all of those eventually having a traditional "Web" page though it
might be assembled and interacted with very differently than a traditional soc
net.

~~~
samtp
The neighborhood social networking example is not as straight forward as it
sounds. The barrier to use isn't just the user experience, but the metaphor
behind the application. Most regular people have a hard time learning new
metaphors to interact with technology.

Do you really think that an entire group of middle-aged moms would all
download an app on their smartphones to co-ordinate carpools? No! They don't
want to deal with technology. Most likely they will just talk person to person
(what a novel idea) or use their existing email list from the team.

Don't mean to get too personal, but this kind of thinking is one of the
disadvantages from living in Silicon Valley. You become disconnected from how
the majority of people live and interact with technology

~~~
pkulak
Exactly. Normal people won't use technology unless it does something they
can't, but need to do, or makes something significantly easier. They don't
just use tech for its own sake like I do.

------
dot
This is a silly post.

Domains are still very important for a number of reasons (prestige being an
obvious one). Buying the domains before announcing the round of funding
probably saved them a good deal of money too.

It's a drop in the bucket if you look at the big picture.

Facebook paid $200k for their domain a few years ago. Imagine what they would
have to shell out now had they decided against it back then.

~~~
david927
There's nothing silly about it. Domains are important but for brandable terms.
Color is far too common a word. It conveys nothing that could be seen as a
brand.

Further, it shows that they're spending with the notion of huge scale long
before there's any sign that's necessary. (It's what sunk a lot of dot bomb
companies.) Yes it might be cheaper now, but it's a risky way to spend their
money especially when a brandable term is both more valuable and less
expensive.

~~~
dot
tell that to apple

~~~
dereg
When do people ever say, "I bought an Apple computer"? People usually say, "I
bought a Mac". Ever rarer will you see someone say, "I bought an Apple phone."
(I'm talking about most laymen aka consumers)

Apple's branding value has followed from their high quality and consumer-
accessible products. No amount of marketing will support a crappy product.
Focusing on marketing over quality is how products die a spectacular death.
Remember Kin?

~~~
minikomi
but do they say "the mac store" ?

~~~
mtran
Mac bought the domain "me.com" which is awful. I love my .mac email address
and _never_ use ".me" for anything. Especially because it used to belong to a
failed social networking site and so is blocked at a bunch of the (govt) sites
that I work!

------
shadowsun7
If I got the implied timeline correct from the original Techcrunch post
([http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/23/color-looks-to-reinvent-
soc...](http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/23/color-looks-to-reinvent-social-
interaction-with-its-mobile-photo-app-and-41-million-in-funding/)), it was:

    
    
      1. Nguyen names company 'Color' and buys color.com  
      2. Sequoia hears about Color, contacts them  
      3. Sequoia gives them $14 million
      4. Other investors want in, and keeps wanting in
         money until the total size of the round hits $41 million.
    

If the implied timeline is correct (and do correct me if I'm wrong), then the
founders were more than prepared to shell out for the domain name even before
the round.

And Nguyen chose the name Color as a tribute to Apple:
[http://www.quora.com/Color-Labs-startup/Why-is-Color-
named-C...](http://www.quora.com/Color-Labs-startup/Why-is-Color-named-Color)

 _A tribute to Apple's color logo from the Apple II. This computer changed my
life when I was seven (also a reference to another company name I've used.)

My dad bought one from ComputerCraft run by Billy Ladin in Houston. He was one
of the first computer resellers back in 1977. In an odd twist, I meet him in
an elevator 15 years later and worked for him. He introduced me to the Web.

Working at Apple was a dream. Color's name is a tribute to Apple._

~~~
awicklander
Apparently the domain was registered in December:
[http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/24/color-com-was-acquired-
for-...](http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/24/color-com-was-acquired-
for-350000-the-domain-name-that-is/)

I'm not sure of the timeline as to when the various investments came in. From
what I understand though, they had $14 million and then Sequoia got in:
[http://blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2011/03/24/sequoia-to-
co...](http://blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2011/03/24/sequoia-to-color-labs-
not-since-google-have-we-seen-this/?mod=google_news_blog))

So, you'd be right, it looks like Sequoia did get in _after_ the purchase of
the domain, which could indeed indicate that the domain helped them in some
way.

Best rebuttal by far.

Though, one could also argue they might not have been so eager to accept
Sequoia's capital if they weren't spending $500,000 on things like domain
names.

------
forensic
Domains are an asset and very easy to justify paying for if you have the
money. It's not like they just burned half a million dollars. If the company
folds they can sell the name.

Also the name is vague enough to encompass any pivots. It's a great name,
probably one of the best domains you could have for an app in the happiness
business.

It was expensive, sure, but they have the money. And corporate accounting
probably sees it as an appreciating asset anyway.

If you have $41 million I can think of few better purchases than a really
great, memorable, meaningful, happiness-associated domain name.

Also it has netted them tons of free advertising. Think all the "The iPad will
fail!!!!!!!" blog posts hurt Apple's bottom line? No one _really_ listens to
naysayers. Pessimists are just an alternative form of advertising.

~~~
pdaviesa
The idea that they already have a corporate accounting dept speaks to the root
of the problem.

~~~
mrkurt
You think it's weird to have a CFO or equivalent when you have that much money
to manage? I sure don't.

~~~
pdaviesa
I'm not sure why they actually need that much money at this stage of their
company's development. With that said, I certainly wouldn't turn down $41
million if someone wanted to give it to me :) However, the fact that they now
need to produce returns on this large of an investment may add a whole new
level of pressure to the already difficult task of launching a viable startup.

------
sgentle
I always thought that people mocked Color because Color got $41 million
dollars and I didn't. I mean, they didn't.

~~~
Umalu
You nailed it. Who is more mockable: the start-up with a 1.0 product that
accepts a ton of VC money, or the VCs who threw the ton of money at them? How
many hackers with a 1.0 product wouldn't take the VC money in the same
circumstances? I'm sure some might refuse to take more than they thought they
deserved, but that has got to be a tiny percentage. The real question is what
the VCs saw to cause them to believe that this was worth what they paid. Given
that others are not seeing it in the 1.0 product, it either has to be
something else that's coming, or it has to be a pretty stupid investment.
Either way, if someone is to be mocked, it's not the entrepreneurs who
accepted the money.

------
PaulHoule
If you're going to spend millions on marketing it isn't crazy to pay half a
million for two domain names that are easy for people to remember.

Remember when Barnes and Noble started an online bookstore and nobody knew if
it was barnesnoble.com or barnesandnoble.com or barnesandnobles.com or
barnesandnobles.com or barns-n-nobles.com or whatever?

You can be quite successful with a brand name that's a catchy neologism, but
if I had the kind of investment they had I wouldn't feel bad about dropping
that much money for a really good domain.

------
uptown
SOME domain names matter. I believe that it was a critical element to Mint's
success. But in their case it was also backed up my a phenomenal service. If
Color can back up their killer domain name with a service people flock to,
then their investment will have been worthwhile. If not, its a generic enough
name with broad applications that is likely to find a buyer in the
neighborhood of what they paid to secure it today.

------
KirinDave
I think the real reason most people are mocking color is that they're turned
off to large funding rounds. That's really it.

The product: not bad. If you can actually network with it (and I have), then
it's actually quite interesting.

The domain name: Not expensive compared to the money they raised.

The funding round: Not a shady play, it seems like a few big partners are just
genuinely excited about the product.

So all I'm left with is that people don't like the number $41m, and now
they're doing anything they can to to justify that initial judgement by
tearing at an otherwise good product.

------
smountcastle
I think that domain names are still extremely important, but I'm curious about
the other side of the equation. Do you think that most consumers are just
following links from Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. and no longer typing in
words in the browser bar and appending .com? Just from shoulder surfing at my
local library, it seems that many 'average' folks are still typing in keywords
and adding .com to the end. For many sites this seems to bring up a
(monetized) landing page with search results where they just click on a link
that looks like what they want -- and if it isn't they hit the back button and
try again or type different keywords in the browser bar. Based on this, it
seems that having a memorable .com domain name is worth it.

Being tech-savvy, I'd never just type in keywords and append .com, but I think
I'm in the minority on this one.

------
Tycho
Color may turn out to be a number of grandiose things, but let's not forget
the simple problem that it solves: sharing photos that different people take
at the same gathering. I mean people do this already, through Facebook and
other photo services, but this takes a whole lot of hassle out of the process.

I wish more commentators would acknowledge this basic USP before waxing
lyrical about implied social graphs and relationship revolutions.

Incidentally, the other day it occurred to me what a big deal the iPad's back
facing camera is. Apple want you to _take_ your iPad to parties and
gatherings, cause it's crowd-gathering appeal is unreal. You're more likely to
do that if you can use it as a camera. At least if the party's in your own
house. It basically transforms more social events into live Apple adverts.

------
Tichy
Is that just a random claim, or does he have data to back it up? I think
domain names still matter a great deal. At least to Google. I have a web site
that is not even among the top 10 pages of search results for it's main
keyword, because the domain name sucks (I claim my site is a lot better than
99% of the search results before it).

Also I think diapers.com makes shitloads of money.

~~~
gaius
Google vs search.com?

~~~
Tichy
Google vs MyGoogleApp.com?

------
trotsky
I always wondered who it was that bought the godaddy domain suggestions in the
form of my[xxx]app.com - now I know, it's all been to bloggers who wanted to
waste their money to prove a point.

~~~
awicklander
Hey trotsky, I'm totally down with people disagreeing with me, and I'd truly
be interested in hearing your thoughts/opinion on why I'm wrong. But I think
saying that I have "questionable intelligence" is unlikely to end up in the
kind of quality discussion & debate hacker news is known for.

~~~
trotsky
Did you really buy the domain names? What on earth are you going to use them
for? It also seems that someone having my opinion (that domains in that form
are embarrassing and not worth the small amount of money you paid) somewhat
discounts your argument that domains don't matter. Clearly they do, at least
to some extent. Are you honestly saying that if you had $41M in the bank you'd
launch your brand with the domain myAwicklanderApp.com ? I doubt it.

~~~
awicklander
Yeah, I did buy them, though I'm not sure what I'll do with them if anything.
Maybe I'll point them to the color.xxx slide show. :)

My post was written, not from the perspective of someone that just got $41
million. But instead, how I would feel if I invested that money in a company
and that's what they decided to spend it on.

~~~
trotsky
Given the timing of the investment and the domain purchases it seems almost
guaranteed (to me) that the investors knew they planned to buy them.

Also, I'm not sure how much of the quality discussion and debate that HN is
known for you can expect on the 18th submission critical of color to hit the
front page in the last few days.

------
jrubinovitz
The real reason most people are mocking Color is because they're jealous of
the amount of funding Color received. In my opinion, Color has not done
anything wrong yet. If you have all that money, why not go and buy an
expensive, memorable domain name?

------
hammock
Seems like there's a basic lack of economic understanding .. when you buy a
Toyota you don't throw $20K into the garbage- you walk away with capital, a
large chunk of metal that plenty of other people would want besides just you.
A domain name is capital too- they can leverage it in the course of business,
or they can resell it recouping most or all of the cost.

As consumers we are so used to buying stuff and then wearing it all the way
out- clothing, computers, soap, food. But when a business invests in capital,
that capital holds value. When a textile plant closes, it liquidates its
looms, it doesn't just write them off as an expense.

------
kenjackson
The example of diapers.com seems like a poor one in that its one of the few
domains that I actively think about when I need to place an order -- "almost
out of diapers. oh yeah, I have a coupon for diapers.com somewhere". It's one
of the few domain names that has probably resulted directly in a sale to me.

~~~
itswindy
Diapers.com and the the very specific ones are great but can't scale. So you
sell diapers and do extremely well, can you sell baby powder? You can but at
some point the name is overgrown. Color is cool and ambiguous enough

------
usedtolurk
Based solely on their decision to buy an expensive domain name, the OP
concludes that:

"when a problem arises, they're going to attack it with the blunt instrument
of more capital, instead of the creative labor"

That's quite a stretch - regardless of whether or not you think the name is
good strategy.

------
jsherry
Just imagine where they'd be today if only Cuil had the foresight to buy
cool.com instead...

~~~
wmil
Then they would have had at least one asset that could have been sold.

------
nickgnat
Honestly, considering the amount of startups that make clever use of TLDs for
their sites, I'm sure they could've figured something a little more economical
out. This does feel like a waste of money to me as well.

It reminds me of the 90s, where people would spend all this time thinking
about a good name/domain name for their websites, and put only secondary
thought into the quality of their site or its content.

Focus on making the product really good first, then buy the domain if you
really have to, and if it's clear that your product is successful and lasting.

As a final thought, why not color.me, color.it, or color.us?

------
spartanfan10
So. Tired. Of hearing people complain about color. However it is manifested.

------
bfe
Ultimately the name "color" makes for weak branding, not only because it's
already so widely used for so many things (even including a pre-existing
software application), but because everyone and their grandma could introduce
new applications with variations of the word "color" in the name and leech off
color.com's hype, and I expect color.com may have a hard time claiming
trademark rights to the word. It doesn't seem like the best plan, and you
can't pivot to a new brand without sacrificing your effort and investment on
the old brand.

~~~
BasDirks
yeah, color is ubiquitous. Which is exactly why it's a great name if it's
marketed well.

------
marcomonteiro
I have a hard time respecting these kinds of "opinion as fact" posts. It would
have probably been better to say he wouldn't or couldn't pay that much for a
domain name and just leave it at that.

To mention thefacebook.com and twitr.com as examples completely undermined his
entire point. Both of those networks changed their domain name prior to their
user base exploding. Coincidence? Strategy? I don't know but there must have
been some reasoning behind it and it seems to be paying off for them.

------
faramarz
Everybody has an opinion. it gets tiring when it's repeated hundreds of time

I would justify the 41MM in funding as; a) a great long terms cash reserve b)
instant fame and media spotlight c) zero need for marketing spend d) an
ambitious vision, with slightly more chance than before the 41MM,a to come to
fruition.

Sorry to go against the grain, but that's my take. If all goes down the
gutter, then I hope the founding team took some money off the table (but not
likely they needed it).

~~~
haploid
Wait, zero need for marketing spend?

The publicity that this move bought them only extends to the insular tech
news/blogger community.

Do you really think JoeSixPack or Kerligirl13 reads TechCrunch? And even if
they did, do you think they'd try out the app based on the amount raised?

I'm sometimes guilty of this type of thinking myself, but really, stop
thinking like a geek when it comes to marketing.

------
shalinmangar
I don't think it has anything to do with the domain. Every time I see another
post about Color, I become more and more convinced that the $41 million
dollars were meant to trigger exactly this kind of frenzy. The usefulness of
the application depends on a lot of people using it simultaneously and Color
making it big without this kind of buzz was almost impossible.

------
d_r
FWIW, of all claims, the diapers example is somewhat bogus. Diapers.com is a
very successful retailer of you guessed what (and, recently acquired by
Amazon, I believe).

While I obviously have no data, I would vouch that mydiapersstore.com would
have way less credibility in customer eyes.

------
ma2rten
Someone, I think it was TechCrunch made a really good point. The money on the
domain names is not gone. They have become assets to the company and they can
sell it again if they do not succeed. All the buzz around the company probably
does not hurt value of the domain names either.

------
psogle
Awesome mocking presentation of colors.xxx (SFW and doesn't have anything to
do with pr0n)

[https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=0AbbL7nVHKW7SYWpkdGN...](https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=0AbbL7nVHKW7SYWpkdGN0Zmh2NGhuXzI2NGczMjlnd2Nj&hl=en)

------
bobbyi
> if someone was selling diapers, and it was 1997, and they bought diapers.com
> it might actually make sense. And that's just the problem. It's not 1997.

Amazon bought (the parent company of) diapers.com less than six months ago for
$500M+.

------
sunsin
Its like a gamble...if you want to become ubiquitous you have to be
ubiquitous. Also, to me, simplicity implies being the original (sometimes...).

Is it worth many thousands of dollars? Probably...if you have the cash.

------
neebz
he just made a whole post about their domain name. it must be mission
accomplished for the color guys.

domains don't matter because ppl don't expect you to have the most obvious of
the domains. So in the situation if someone actually comes out and gets
diapers.com or color.com ..then it's really an awe-factor.

their app (in functionality) failed and that is the only reason they are
struggling. other than that their PR stunts (we raised huge money, we got
great domains, we have great team, we have everything mobile/social/local)
worked like a charm. no one can stop talking about them.

~~~
billybob
Having everyone say "you suck" isn't the kind of publicity you want. If your
app sucks, you don't want it to be famous for sucking. I mean, Lotus Notes is
famous, right? Are you running out to use it?

With this kind of publicity, you've got an uphill battle to convince people to
use it - assuming you can improve it. Which the OP argues you COULD do if you
diverted your PR money into actually working on the app.

I don't think there's much of an "awe-factor" in domain names. I heard the guy
who made Instapaper interviewed, and he said that his domain and app name
don't even make sense for his app; it was a domain he'd originally registered
for a different idea. But nobody cares because they like the app.

I think the OP's point is valid: they could have easily come up with a short,
memorable name, gotten it cheap, and hired 3 more developers.

------
itswindy
Color.com was bought for about 1/80th of the money raised. The name color.com
will most likely keep its value so it's not wasted money, or not 100% wasted.

p.s. the URL of the color.com basher is idealprojectgroup.com

------
drpancake
This assumes that there's no plans for a web-based view on the platform. To
twist this round, imagine having to visit 'myfacebookapp.com'.

------
BasDirks
color.com / colour.com are pretty much the best names for an app called Color.
Imagine them going big, and sitting at "mycolorapp" (amazing creativity from
someone who criticizes that exact point)..

