After raising $41-million and then pulling off one of the most inauspicious debuts since the Flock alpha, Color is apparently preparing for a pivot.
Here’s what I say about this “pivot”: When you raise $41-million before you have any users or revenue, you shouldn’t get to pivot because it shows that the original idea was terrible, and who knows if the pivot is going to be any better.
Color entered the ultra-competitive photo-sharing market with a product that wasn’t compelling, interesting or appealing. It generated a lot of “meh”, which is the death knell for any start-up.
How Color managed to raise $41-million let alone $4.1-million is anyone’s guess but strange things happen in Silicon Valley that the rest of us apparently don’t understand. Despite Color’s disastrous debut, there was something under the hood that we explain its ability to raise so much money. So far, we haven’t seen anything other than a new project with super-duper potential (tongue planted firmly in cheek) called Blue.
Color illustrates why Silicon Valley is so fascinating and there are so many successful start-ups: failure is not bad even if means having a $41-million investment blow up. Failure means you get to pivot, learn from your mistakes, and then try again with the same project or another project down the road.
Everywhere else around the world, failure is a terrifying prospect. In Canada, investors are so scared of failure that start-ups struggle to raise even modest amount of seed capital. We look at entrepreneurs who have failed as losers, while Silicon Valley sees unsuccessful entrepreneurs as brave warriors.
In Silicon Valley, it means Color gets an opportunity to pivot. I would be extremely surprised if Color was even modestly successful but at least it gets to try.