8 ms·

The real reason people are mocking Color...

155 points by awicklander 16y ago

faramarz 16y ago
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 16y ago
  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.
neebz 16y ago
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 16y ago
  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.
- Semiapies 16y ago
  People talked a lot about CueCat, too...for a while.
dot 16y ago
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.
- greyman 16y ago
  Moreover, the domain name color.com is cool, and, the price was not that high to begin with.
  - djhomeless 16y ago
    Indeed - didn't business.com sell for $1M a few years ago?
    - AlexC04 16y ago
      - $150k - then $7.5 Million (name only) - then $350M (name and website) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business.com
  - haploid 16y ago
    This. I don't understand why everyone thinks the price for color.com was too high. We paid quite a bit more than that for our domain names, so I do have a point of reference here. I personally believe this was a horrible investment in a horrible product with a horrible idea, but to rip on the domain name purchase really seems like the least of all possible concerns.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
    - ry0ohki 16y ago
      It looks like from your profile that your domains were for a purchasable consumer good, I still think $500k is expensive for that, but given how much juice Google gives to owning the domain, probably a pretty wise investment. You didn't have a choice about what people would search for, if I want a necktie, I'm going to search for "necktie". No one is going to search for Color and find a photo app, they are going to search for the name of whatever the cool app people are talking about is, so for quick, cheap SEO they would have been better off calling it MonkeySponge or something.
trotsky 16y ago
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 16y ago
  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 16y ago
    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 16y ago
      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 16y ago
        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.
PaulHoule 16y ago
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 16y ago
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.
sgentle 16y ago
I always thought that people mocked Color because Color got $41 million dollars and I didn't. I mean, they didn't.
- Umalu 16y ago
  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.
dexen 16y ago
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?
- DanI-S 16y ago
  This line of thought is perplexing. Wouldn't want someone else's enterprise to succeed, now, would we?
  - getsat 16y ago
    > Wouldn't want someone else's enterprise to succeed, now, would we? Not when it revolves entirely around data mining and hype.
  - dexen 16y ago
    Huh? Let this particular business succeed on its merits, just like the average start-up. Not merely on buzz fueled by 41 and six zeros. No need a celebrity type success here (where ``celebrity is a person who is known for his well-knownness''). Anyway, thanks for pointing out my post could be mis-understood that much.
    - DanI-S 16y ago
      If $41m is what is needed for this company to generate huge buzz, build a massive user base and make phenomenal amounts of money, it's a completely valid venture. I'm not arguing that it will be a success - it just seems sensible to wait for the outcome before passing judgement on whether the investment was worthwhile. Let this particular business succeed on its merits, just like the average start-up. Surely one of those 'merits' is having the wiles to raise large amounts of funding and spend it appropriately, including on mindshare?
      - 16y ago
replicatorblog 16y ago
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 16y ago
  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 16y ago
    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 16y ago
      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.
Tycho 16y ago
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.
smountcastle 16y ago
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.
forensic 16y ago
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 16y ago
  The idea that they already have a corporate accounting dept speaks to the root of the problem.
  - mrkurt 16y ago
    You think it's weird to have a CFO or equivalent when you have that much money to manage? I sure don't.
    - pdaviesa 16y ago
      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.
Tichy 16y ago
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.
- haploid 16y ago
  Minor correction: diapers.com loses shitloads of money. By the time Amazon acquired them, the founders had diluted themselves down to about 2% and had taken on large amounts of debt as well. What you can say, however, is that diapers.com sold for shitloads of money.
- gaius 16y ago
  Google vs search.com?
  - Tichy 16y ago
    Google vs MyGoogleApp.com?
spartanfan10 16y ago
So. Tired. Of hearing people complain about color. However it is manifested.
shadowsun7 16y ago
If I got the implied timeline correct from the original Techcrunch post (http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/23/color-looks-to-reinvent-social-interaction-with-its-mobile-photo-app-and-41-million-in-funding/ http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/23/color-looks-to-reinvent-soc...), 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-Color http://www.quora.com/Color-Labs-startup/Why-is-Color-named-C... 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 16y ago
  Apparently the domain was registered in December: http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/24/color-com-was-acquired-for-350000-the-domain-name-that-is/ http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/24/color-com-was-acquired-for-... 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-color-labs-not-since-google-have-we-seen-this/?mod=google_news_blog http://blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2011/03/24/sequoia-to-co...) 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.
hammock 16y ago
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.
bfe 16y ago
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 16y ago
  yeah, color is ubiquitous. Which is exactly why it's a great name if it's marketed well.
BasDirks 16y ago
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)..
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
jsherry 16y ago
Just imagine where they'd be today if only Cuil had the foresight to buy cool.com instead...
- wmil 16y ago
  Then they would have had at least one asset that could have been sold.
shalinmangar 16y ago
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.
drpancake 16y ago
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'.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
KirinDave 16y ago
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.
kenjackson 16y ago
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 16y ago
  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
sunsin 16y ago
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.
ma2rten 16y ago
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.
marcomonteiro 16y ago
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.
nickgnat 16y ago
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?
d_r 16y ago
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.
bobbyi 16y ago
> 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+.
jrubinovitz 16y ago
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?
psogle 16y ago
Awesome mocking presentation of colors.xxx (SFW and doesn't have anything to do with pr0n) https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=0AbbL7nVHKW7SYWpkdGN0Zmh2NGhuXzI2NGczMjlnd2Nj&hl=en https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=0AbbL7nVHKW7SYWpkdGN...
itswindy 16y ago
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
usedtolurk 16y ago
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.

155 points by awicklander 16y ago

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 16y ago
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.

neebz 16y ago

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 16y ago
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.
Semiapies 16y ago
People talked a lot about CueCat, too...for a while.

dot 16y ago

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.

greyman 16y ago
Moreover, the domain name color.com is cool, and, the price was not that high to begin with.
- djhomeless 16y ago
  Indeed - didn't business.com sell for $1M a few years ago?
  - AlexC04 16y ago
    - $150k - then $7.5 Million (name only) - then $350M (name and website) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business.com
- haploid 16y ago
  This. I don't understand why everyone thinks the price for color.com was too high. We paid quite a bit more than that for our domain names, so I do have a point of reference here. I personally believe this was a horrible investment in a horrible product with a horrible idea, but to rip on the domain name purchase really seems like the least of all possible concerns.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - ry0ohki 16y ago
    It looks like from your profile that your domains were for a purchasable consumer good, I still think $500k is expensive for that, but given how much juice Google gives to owning the domain, probably a pretty wise investment. You didn't have a choice about what people would search for, if I want a necktie, I'm going to search for "necktie". No one is going to search for Color and find a photo app, they are going to search for the name of whatever the cool app people are talking about is, so for quick, cheap SEO they would have been better off calling it MonkeySponge or something.

trotsky 16y ago

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 16y ago
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 16y ago
  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 16y ago
    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 16y ago
      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.

PaulHoule 16y ago

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 16y ago

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.

sgentle 16y ago

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

Umalu 16y ago
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.

dexen 16y ago

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?

DanI-S 16y ago
This line of thought is perplexing. Wouldn't want someone else's enterprise to succeed, now, would we?
- getsat 16y ago
  > Wouldn't want someone else's enterprise to succeed, now, would we? Not when it revolves entirely around data mining and hype.
- dexen 16y ago
  Huh? Let this particular business succeed on its merits, just like the average start-up. Not merely on buzz fueled by 41 and six zeros. No need a celebrity type success here (where ``celebrity is a person who is known for his well-knownness''). Anyway, thanks for pointing out my post could be mis-understood that much.
  - DanI-S 16y ago
    If $41m is what is needed for this company to generate huge buzz, build a massive user base and make phenomenal amounts of money, it's a completely valid venture. I'm not arguing that it will be a success - it just seems sensible to wait for the outcome before passing judgement on whether the investment was worthwhile. Let this particular business succeed on its merits, just like the average start-up. Surely one of those 'merits' is having the wiles to raise large amounts of funding and spend it appropriately, including on mindshare?
    - 16y ago

replicatorblog 16y ago

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 16y ago
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 16y ago
  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 16y ago
    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.

Tycho 16y ago

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.

smountcastle 16y ago

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.

forensic 16y ago

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 16y ago
The idea that they already have a corporate accounting dept speaks to the root of the problem.
- mrkurt 16y ago
  You think it's weird to have a CFO or equivalent when you have that much money to manage? I sure don't.
  - pdaviesa 16y ago
    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.

Tichy 16y ago

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.

haploid 16y ago
Minor correction: diapers.com loses shitloads of money. By the time Amazon acquired them, the founders had diluted themselves down to about 2% and had taken on large amounts of debt as well. What you can say, however, is that diapers.com sold for shitloads of money.
gaius 16y ago
Google vs search.com?
- Tichy 16y ago
  Google vs MyGoogleApp.com?

spartanfan10 16y ago

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

shadowsun7 16y ago

If I got the implied timeline correct from the original Techcrunch post (http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/23/color-looks-to-reinvent-social-interaction-with-its-mobile-photo-app-and-41-million-in-funding/ http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/23/color-looks-to-reinvent-soc...), 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-Color http://www.quora.com/Color-Labs-startup/Why-is-Color-named-C... 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 16y ago
Apparently the domain was registered in December: http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/24/color-com-was-acquired-for-350000-the-domain-name-that-is/ http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/24/color-com-was-acquired-for-... 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-color-labs-not-since-google-have-we-seen-this/?mod=google_news_blog http://blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2011/03/24/sequoia-to-co...) 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.

hammock 16y ago

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.

bfe 16y ago

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 16y ago
yeah, color is ubiquitous. Which is exactly why it's a great name if it's marketed well.

BasDirks 16y ago

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)..

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

jsherry 16y ago

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

wmil 16y ago
Then they would have had at least one asset that could have been sold.

shalinmangar 16y ago

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.

drpancake 16y ago

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'.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

KirinDave 16y ago

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.

kenjackson 16y ago

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 16y ago
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

sunsin 16y ago

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.

ma2rten 16y ago

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.

marcomonteiro 16y ago

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.

nickgnat 16y ago

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?

d_r 16y ago

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.

bobbyi 16y ago

> 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+.

jrubinovitz 16y ago

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?

psogle 16y ago

Awesome mocking presentation of colors.xxx (SFW and doesn't have anything to do with pr0n) https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=0AbbL7nVHKW7SYWpkdGN0Zmh2NGhuXzI2NGczMjlnd2Nj&hl=en https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=0AbbL7nVHKW7SYWpkdGN...

itswindy 16y ago

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

usedtolurk 16y ago

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.