Allen Stern at CenterNetworks queries how good Propeller (previously “Netscape.com”) is and will be, and crunches some publicly available traffic data to suggest, perhaps, in time it will be a legitimate #2 to Digg as the social news king.

I have to admit that I don’t follow Digg and its clones other social news brethren all that closely; neither do I know if Propeller has anything in particular “cooking”, as it were behind the scenes.

However, what I think _is_ clear to me is that Propeller needs to continue growing.  Depending on the graph you look at, they’re either plateauing or growing; I’d like to think that they’re doing a little of the latter.

However, they need to continue doing this in spades if they are going to play “second fiddle” to *anyone* (keeping in mind that Propeller is probably trying to be the best Propeller it can be ;) — and that means, not just resting on the strength of its community, or the strength of its anchors, or propeller-heads, or what have you.

Its clear that to grow, they’ll need to pull out some strategic and tactical marketing maneuvers to continue to win over new and older fans of social news, whether it means contests, free swag, off-line advertising, or joint ventures with AOL’s partners  or cross-marketing across the variety of AOL properties.

I mean, in some ways, Propeller is excellently positioned for the latter of those two options given how deep AOL’s roots *do* go.

I suppose the question is if in 2008 we’ll continue to think of Propeller as a “formerly of Netscape” and “that place where people are paid to moderate”, or if it will, in the immortal words of Paula Abdul, take that piece and “really make it your own!”

So, I’m not at TechCrunch40, although it seems like a great time.  I like Allen Stern’s coverage of the event, which is over here, and what’s interesting is the observation that none of the experts were all that critical.  Now, if anyone else ponied up $2500 a ticket and wants to correct this observation, please go ahead.  But I’m not all that surprised, to be honest.

Its difficult to be critical — or rather, its easy to be “easy” — when you know that your reputation is on the line; there is huge audience in front of you; and, that what you say could determine the potential to be invited back as a speaker.  I mean, what if you say something colossally stupid?  What then?  I suppose the safe thing is to clap your hands and say “That was a great job — you took that song and made it your *own*.”

So, this is the third posting in a day on Morgan Webb’s WebbAlert, I know, but in Allen Stern of CenterNetworks queries whether there is an FM (Federated Media) Conspiracy regarding WebbAlert.  After all, its FM sells space on WebbAlert.  And  many of the reviews of WebbAlert done by the other FM blogs are actually positive of WebbAlert.

In the context of past FM ‘conversational marketing’ shennanigans, does this constitute another form of subtle conversational marketing?  Marketing done on the sly?  Has John Batelle quietly asked — velvet fist-styles — his FM authors to skew their posts to favourably influence traffic and opinion towards another FM authored blog?

Maybe.

(God knows I love a good conspiracy).

The problem is that most of the reviews are generally warranted.  I think this is a good move on Webb’s part.  She does the part well.  She has fan-boy cred.  Its not half bad.  And its still way, way, way too early to really judge how this thing is going to go.

Now, if WebbAlert sucked raw donkey sphincter, that’d be a completely different story.  But because things have yet to pan out, I’ll agree with Allen on this one.  I mean, the picture of FM blogs pimping one another seems laughable on the surface, but I suppose stranger things have happened in the blogosphere.  And the conversation is one that deserves watching carefully, if for no other reason that the issue of a potential conflicts of interest is always a worthy one — and does come up here, since the common denominator is the company which is funneling payments to everyone.

So, in contemplating the latest tech issues that are floating around the blogosphere, a thought came to me during my morning constitutional. Disclosure is a Big Thing amongst bloggers, and perhaps even so amongst bloggers with influence. Witness the hubaloo over the weekend where Federated Media’s attempts at “Conversational Marketing” (and rather old attempts at that — Valleywag needs to improve the quality of its bird-dogs, methinks) created a giant stink … and some of that had to do with disclosure.

And I think the issue of bias, truth, and disclosure is going to be one of those perennial topics that bloggers love to get riled over. Probably because there is a perception that blogging is somehow, or ought to be, more truthful, more honest, more sincere, and have more integrity than other publishing mediums. When a blogger says something or does something contrary to that, there’s a conflict in perception, and the bigger / more beloved / more hated the blogger, the bigger reaction.

But how about this angle on things.

I blog about technology, web startups, social media and all manner of things. I’d like to think that my opinion has a certain amount of currency amongst the people who read this site, or who subscribe to my feeds.

But do you ever wonder if I have a vested interest in blogging about what I do blog about? And, no, I’m not talking about advertising, like Federated Media.

Rather, have you ever wondered whether I actually hold a position in any publicly (or even, let’s say, privately owned) companies that I may have blogged about? Do you think that might affect what I write about? What I “cover”? What I don’t? What I write positively about? What I write negatively about?

It should. And, maybe it should get you to start thinking about what your other favourite bloggers own.

For example, would it shock you if I told you that I hold shares in AOL, which owns Netscape, a direct competitor to Digg, of whom I have criticized endlessly?

(I don’t, so don’t worry).

Disclosure on this kind of level, as far as I know, happens when its convenient for bloggers, or when its topical. For example, Mike Arrington has told us on loads of occasions that he is involved with the startup, DayLife. That is a clear potential bias for his coverage, but he tells you right off the bat.How about the ones he doesn’t tell you about? And, not to single out Mike, but what about your other favourite bloggers?

And let’s be really clear and “transparent” about this argument. How about the biggest players in the business who we all love to blog about? Who owns shares in Microsoft? Google? AOL?

How about Apple?

Could anyone who owns shares in Apple — and let’s crank up the hyperbole for a second, and say, “what if your IRA is counting on it?” [or, if you live in Canada, RRSP] — really and truthfully write an honest review about its chances pre and post iPhone? Isn’t it in their best interests … even on a subconscious level — to either not write about it, or generally agree with the reviews at large that its going to be the next biggest thing since Jeebus?

So, here’s where I come in.

“What does Tony own?” … you might ask.

Well, I’ll be completely honest. I *do* own shares of Apple. Not a lot. And I mean, *really* not a lot. But, that’s an investment that I made because I believe in Apple’s long term growth, and more importantly, the svengali powers of Steve Jobs.

My own take on the iPhone is that it doesn’t really matter what it *doesn’t* have. The magic was in the marketing that lead up to this point, and more importantly, everything it *does* have. And from a company point of view? Apple is going to keep up making more and more of these things. And by “Things” yes, I mean newer, better, versions of the iPhone — just like the iPod (and therefore, it really doesn’t matter what it doesn’t have). But also other things that people are going to fall in love with.

Steve Jobs — I swear, you better not have a heart attack any time in the next 10-15 years! ;)

But that’s it.

I don’t own shares in Microsoft, or Google or anything else. Maybe I should.

But in thinking about things, it really got me thinking.

“There is absolutely no way I can write anything honest about the iPhone. I mean *really* honest.” Because I’d love for it to do well. Gangbusters well. So Apple stores can increase their revenue per square foot even MORE (did you know that Apple stores have the highest revenue per square foot in all of retailing?) Part of me wants it to fail, because I love schaedenfreude much as the next man — heck, possibly more. But I can’t revel in it fully — or even be myself — because of what I own.

So there you go. Its out there. I own a few shares of Apple.

But, what do your favourite tech bloggers own? And do you think its going to bias their coverage of tech companies now — and in the future?