Does everything need to be a social network? Apparently it does. Magnify.net, a video-hosting and sharing platform that raised $1 million in February, is adding social networking features to its video channels.
Magnify lets Web publishers assemble videos from across the Web—YouTube, AOL, Veoh—and show it in the embeddable Magnify player. Websites use Magnify to create video channels associated with their content or the interests of their audience members. Now those viewers can create profiles within each channel and “friend” others with similar interests. They can also track and subscribe to the activity streams of other members, so they will know when their new “friends” rate, tag, share, or comment on a video. With this release, Magnify is also integrating with Twitter, Mogulus, and Flickr. Magnify splits ad revenues 50/50 with the sites. It is offering Pro and Enterprise versions as well.
Creating social networks around videos is going to be tough. For one thing, Magnify is requiring people to create a different profile for each video channel instead of letting them create one profile that works on any Magnify channel. Making people create multiple profiles is a bad idea and might make this whole effort a non-starter. It would be better to leverage its existing network of video channels across different sites.
But there is a bigger issue here. Are people who watch the same videos really part of a community? In most cases, I would argue that they are not. Think about the videos you watch on the Web. They tend to be a random assortment—something you see here on TechCrunch or that a friend put on your SuperWall on Facebook. Socializing around video is better done in existing social networks with your real friends. It is also a more natural way to discover videos.
Magnify wants to change this by letting Websites create dedicated video channels around a theme or set of interests. That’s fine. We need better video programming on the Web. And letting viewers rate, tag, and leave comments on those videos is important. But for most people that is as much interaction as they are going to want. They already belong to one or more social networks that incorporate video just fine. They don’t need to join a new one that is limited to people who watch just one channel. That would be like joining the NBC or TNT social network. Am I wrong?
Update: Magnify CEO Steve Rosenbaum responds:
I think something may have gotten lost in translation -
NBC or TNT are General Interest ‘mass’ networks who’s viewers have little in common – other than a show they may like.
Our channels already *are* communities… We have 250,000 registered users across the networks. If we had them each fill out ‘one’ profile, then we would be asking the Fly Fishermen what Cars they race, or the Race Car drivers what Tribe they’re from.
These are focused, vertical, fast growing communities. Video is the way they talk to each other, and what they talk about.
So it’s not that we’re “adding” social networking, but rather that we’re letting folks with 250,000 profiles engage and talk to each other…
Fair enough, except that those 250,000 people can’t talk to each other. They can only talk to other people in their viewing cohort. Maybe the NBC analogy was too broad. But even if I like watching funny cat videos, that doesn’t mean I want to talk to total strangers who also like to watch funny cat videos. I’d rather annoy my friends on Facebook with those videos.
If I see another startup try to force a social network over a concept that doesn’t require it, I’m going to puke. I’m sick of making friends! Just give me stuff that I like…
I actually think that the idea on the whole will work – it’s what Joost was trying to do (in some form) and it’s what a lot of fortune 500 companies want to do with their brand video channels. When we launch http://www.causes.tv, (in our spare time!) we want to offer visitors the option to build a network around the social cause of their choice to share and watch videos so that they can collectively drive more donations (we’ll donate 75% of video ad revenue to the cause of their choice). However, there needs to be a reason related to watching video to justify a SN, otherwise it’s just a waste of time.
Of course its a good idea. Imagine if people took the trouble to collect all the Borat or Ali G clips from across the web, or all The Word clips… then we could all access them easily and have fun commenting them!
By the way, here is my favorite Ali G clip: hilarious!
http://www.yout...h?v=oftOCN1jkNo
meh. Social Networking + Video Sharing + Revenue Splits + Folksonomy = SO LAST YEAR!
Thanks for the coverage, it’s always good to have TechCrunch take the time to dig in and explore the video space.
To your summary and question at the end of the post, “But for most people that is as much interaction as they are going to want. They already belong to one or more social networks that incorporate video just fine. They don’t need to join a new one that is limited to people who watch just one channel. That would be like joining the NBC or TNT social network. Am I wrong?”
err… kind of…
I think something may have gotten lost in translation -
NBC or TNT are General Interest ‘mass’ networks who’s viewers have little in common – other than a show they may like.
Our channels already *are* communities…
We have 57,000 registered users on Video.Racingjunk.com
We have://www.natube.magnify.net/ 358 American Indian members
and http://www.rcuv...nify.net/users/ has 4,439 registered users.
250,000 registered users across the networks
If we had them each fill out ‘one’ profile, then we would be asking the Fly Fishermen what Cars they race, or the Race Car drivers what Tribe they’re from.
These are focused, vertical, fast growing communities.
Video is the way they talk to each other, and what they talk about -
So it’s not that we’re ‘adding’ social networking, but rather that we’re letting folks with 250,000 profiles engage and talk to each other…
it’s a natural step that feels good to our sites, and allows people with related interests interact.
and – you can watch all the videos you want without registering – so really, all we’ve done is add permission based peer connections.
Cheers -
just because you make a network doesnt mean people are going to start socializing. These fucking idiots who work for these sites need a reality check
Wrong? Well, I’d say this statement is off: “Magnify Wants to Turn Video Channels Into Social Networks.”
There’s a big difference between building social networks and adding social networking functionality. The former is a me-too concept by now, sure, but the latter seems useful and often essential to many apps these days. I’d think that just about anyone taking a look at the magnify site and associated channels wouldn’t be hit over the head that it’s some faux Bebo-type site or the like.
Re the idea of 1 logon platform-wide, this would normally make sense but Magnify is fairly different from a lot of other related offerings (at least Arrington said so previously: http://www.tech...he-video-crowd/)– it’s not and never tried to be a destination. The tools are there for someone to build their own site and almost completely distance itself from the Magnify brand if they like. If you click around on the featured channels, you’ll see that many have their own URL’s, for instance. This makes the single login tough, though it’s a fair enough initial thought.
(disclosure: I’ve done some consulting work for the company in the past)
Another $1M for yet another social network site? I wonder how much funding I can get for creating an anti-social network?
Actually, the whole concept is quite right however Techcrunch may have been too severe on this topic. Why?
As no.3 Daniel says above, what if someone wanted to watch a particular series of movies…? Taking this one step further, what if the video content represented information worth knowing and therefore shared among a group.
For example 1, videos on historic buildings which may deal with local issues and the how’s, why’s and when’s etc. Local history groups may have access to new or updated information which fits within their remit of research of local history.
Example 2, sports clubs can focus people’s minds and interests on certain aspects illustrating their roots, sports characters, competitons… Past and present members would obviously have something to share here.
So, videos could be a simple method to ignite the interest of a social gathering. Also, think in terms of geneology: people with similar/blood roots all have something in common and when shared this information is a bond that can be explored.
Therefore, any social network would have to be based on strong undercurrents rather than just a flimsy hope that funny videos will be a match-maker for all those people who like funny videos.
capisci?