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?

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.techcrunch.com/2007.....deo-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)

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.rcuvideos.magnify.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 -

By the way, here is my favorite Ali G clip: hilarious!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oftOCN1jkNo