Would you think differently about new startup Color if it had been announced as a new Facebook feature?
Originally posted to the newsletter Wednesday, March 24, 11:30 PM. Sign up here.
Here’s the thing about Color.
(Background, Techcrunch: Color Looks To Reinvent Social Interaction With Its Mobile Photo App (And $41 Million In Funding)
Yes, $41 million is wild. The Twitter buzz is that it’s too much money to fund another photo-sharing app. It’s been described as a photo Twitter, a photo chatroulette (which faded fast after the initial buzz), the opposite of Path, etc. And I’m steadfastly on the record that the world doesn’t need another photo-sharing app.
But here’s the thing: it’s not just a photo-sharing app. Sequoia, Bain and SVB aren’t funding this for $41 million with the idea that it’s just a photo-sharing app. Flush with cash in a hot market, yes. Dumb, no.
Photo-sharing is just the trojan horse to get it on your phone. It’s an app meant to collect data about highly local, highly personal experiences, that is built to learn about you, where you go, track what you’re doing, who you’re with, and recommend things and people to you based on all that information. And by “recommend”, I mean advertise to: highly targeted, highly relevant, highly contextual advertising. What’s the CPM / CPA on a highly targeted recommendation sent to you on your phone when you’re making a purchase decision?
Or think of this differently: what would you think about Color if it was announced as a new Facebook feature, rather than a new startup?
Quite differently, yes, you would. And that’s what it is, except that Facebook hasn’t bought it yet.
Updated
- Manu Kumar: “Seeing all the tweets about Color launch. I will be disappointed if the Color app isn’t just a trojan horse for a new mobile social network.” (tweet)
- Fred Wilson, The Implicit Social Graph

