Here's the thing, the domains of most successful websites are somewhat informative about the service that the website provides. It doesn't matter how abstract or strange the name may seem. For example, look at sites/services like Reddit, Digg, Facebook, Twitter, Dropbox, Netflix, Mint, and Yelp. All of those sites have names can be derived from their purpose. How about Color? That name is totally ambiguous and thus loses effectiveness.
What if Facebook was named "friends.com"? Sure, it probably would have been cool to have such a simple domain name, but Facebook is more effective because the name signals purpose.
In short, it's not only about the "prestige" in a name, it's about what that name signals. Color signals nothing.
Agreed. I do think domain names are valuable. However, they could have spent their money better. Probably less money too. The name color doesn't evoke anything to the purpose. I would have gone with something that speaks to social interaction and capturing moments. Catchit, lifeline, keeple, or something similar. -Keeple is pretty awesome, actually. :)
The whole point is that the rest of them have built a recognizable brand. You can do that with an offbeat word like yelp relatively easily, but they'll never do it with color.
The cynic in me theorizes that "color" is a term perfectly targeted to the company's real customers, advertisers, as it implies a deep store of data on the targets of advertisements. The "color" is that which has been added to potential ad viewers' demographic profiles through use of the service.
What if Facebook was named "friends.com"? Sure, it probably would have been cool to have such a simple domain name, but Facebook is more effective because the name signals purpose.
In short, it's not only about the "prestige" in a name, it's about what that name signals. Color signals nothing.