In an economy where many businesses are struggling to stay afloat, pet products and services have continued to take off like a hare in a turtle race. In fact, the American Pets Product Association has estimated that in 2009, Americans will spend approximately $45.4 billion on their pets — a $2.2 billion increase from what pet owners shelled out in 2008. That’s one spoiled Siamese.

A couple of my favorite new petrepreneurial businesses include Pet Airways, a first-class pet-only airline that travels between five cities (Los Angeles, New York, Washington, Chicago and Denver) with fares starting at $149 each way and features main-cabin accomodations and service from airline stewards (no joke, people). The other is D Pet Hotel (a playful takeoff on the “W” Hotels, I assume), a 24/7 boarding and spa destination for pets in the Hollywood area.

You see, I’m a pet owner (see unbelievably cute photo of my doodles Dino and Murphy who hate posing for photos above). So after reading the amenities available at the D Pet Hotel, like luxury suites with king- and queen-sized beds and flat screen TVs, a chauffeured car service, and a photo set with professional “furtographers,” I had to chuckle.

I honestly don’t think my dogs would enjoy a night at the D Pet Hotel. Granted, my dogs reside in a nondescript Twin Cities suburb so their personalities can’t compare to fufu LA Fidos, but seriously, a spa? A photographer where they have to stand still? TV? Ahhh, that would be a big N-O. If my dogs were going to spend an evening away and enjoy it, they’d want bunnies to chase (sorry PETA), raw meat to gnaw on (sorry again), a shallow but swimmable pond followed by a car ride with all the windows rolled down to lightly dry off and something stinky to roll around in at the end of the night.

Wait a second, maybe I’m onto something…

The world of TV infomercials took quite a hit with the passing of Billy Mays last weekend.  I’m pretty sure we haven’t seen such an effective pitcher since Cy Young.  If he was selling, people were buying – to the tune of more than $1 billion in collective sales for the products he endorsed. So what made Mays the king of all salesmen?  Was it the hands-on demonstrations for products like OxiClean and Zorbeez?  Was it the booming voice and animated hand gestures?  Was it the well-groomed beard?  I’d say all of the above and then some.

As a marketer, you have to admire how this guy built the Billy Mays brand.  In a profession made up of hucksters and snake oil salesmen, Mays came off as genuine and trustworthy – the handy neighbor who always had a solution to your problem. He cultivated that personality and took great care not damage his reputation by hawking products that didn’t work.

I’m a pretty skeptical guy – certainly not one to buy gadgets from infomercials – but I can see why Mays was successful.  He started every commercial with his trademark: “Hi, I’m Billy Mays for [insert product conveniently priced at $19.95 here]” – an endorsement that grew to mean something to people. And Mays was smart enough to know that stumping for just one clunker would hinder his ability to sell in the future.

It takes a lifetime build a reputation and only a second to irreparably damage it – and by all accounts, that’s why Mays tested and believed in all the products he sold.

He also made sure not to take himself too seriously, as witnessed by the recent commercials he did for ESPN or the popular YouTube clip which has been viewed 450,000 times where he humorously spoofs himself while ordering at a McDonald’s Drive Thru.

Believe it or not – it’s possible Mays was just about to really take his career to the next level when he died.  Not only was he gaining wide appeal via the ESPN spots, but he had a TV show on the Discovery Channel entitled “Pitchmen” and he was set to star in a new series of Taco Bell commercials.

In fact, I heard someone say he was on the verge of becoming a “cultural icon.”  That’s quite an ambitious description, but was it possible?  Given the millions of people who have been trusting him with their checkbooks for years, I think I can buy it.

When’s the last time you had some Zotz? Bottle Caps? Pop Rocks or Razzles?

It’s a long story, but suffice to say that in the course of looking for some information on the Smith Brothers cough drop guys (Trade and Mark), I ran across OldTimeCandy.com. It’s run by a company out of Ohio that proclaims its mission is “to provide childhood candy memories in such a way that it glorifies God and His plan for our lives.”

The Lord does work in mysterious ways. But whether these treats come from heaven above or are devilish temptations from Old Scratch, I’ve got a wife with a sweet tooth and a birthday coming up. And I think she’s in need of a Sugar Daddy and some nice wax lips.

P.S. For those of you who didn’t get the Smith Brothers reference, have you ever looked at their label?

New York Times reporter David Rohde had been taken captive by the Taliban in Afghanistan seven months ago and — thank the deity of your choosing — he recently escaped and found his way to safety. That’s wonderful news.

Speaking of news, I would have guessed this gentleman’s capture itself would have qualified as news. The Times, however, thinks not, as it kept the story under wraps for the full seven months.

As NPR reports, “Out of concern for the reporter’s safety, The Times asked other major news organizations to do the same; NPR was among dozens of news outlets that did not report on the kidnapping at the urging of Rohde’s colleagues.”

In that NPR story, Melissa Block interviews Kelly McBride, who teaches ethics to journalists at the Poynter Institute. McBride tells NPR:

I find it a little disturbing because it makes me wonder what else 40 international news organizations have agreed not to tell the public. … I don’t think we [as journalists] do ourselves any favors long term for our credibility when we have a total news blackout on something that’s clearly of interest to the public.

More troubling for me, though, is McBride’s closing argument: “What’s so scary about this is, if it hadn’t been a journalist, I wonder if they would have made the decisions that they made.”

Whenever a ship captain gets snatched up by gun-toting pirates or a contractor working abroad is taken hostage by some militant types, those hostages’ names and faces are unavoidable. (Goes to show what an impact cable news can still have.) But when it’s one of their own, these major media outlets are quick to clam up in the name of protection.

Are these other hostages, the ones publicly identified so quickly, not in harm’s way? Does that sound hypocritical and a little scary to anyone other than me and Poynter’s McBride?

Photo courtesy of Tomas Munita/New York Times

We’re having a fascinating debate about media credibility surrounding Michael Jackson’s death.

George said he didn’t really believe the news until he saw an item by the LA Times. Mike, Andy and I disagreed — when TMZ broke the news, we said, that was credible for this arena.

TMZ is in the celebrity gossip business, that’s their milieu, and they have the sources. For that particular item, we said, TMZ is as credible as the LA Times — maybe even more so.

But George points out that there’s an additional layer of complication in the form of the bogus report — circulating yesterday, the day of Jackson’s death — that actor Jeff Goldblum had died on a movie set in New Zealand.

So, on the same day, you’ve got two reports of celebrity deaths by non-mainstream news organizations: one true, one false.

What do you think? Who can we believe? Did you trust TMZ with the Jackson news?

You may want to check out BookofCooks.com.  This new online marketplace is featured in the most recent Springwise newsletter and it sounds like an interesting option not only for consumers who don’t have the time and energy to cook for themselves, but also for amateur and professional chefs looking to make some extra cash. 

Consumers can visit the site to find people in their area who cook for them and chefs can use it to set up an online restaurant or bakery.  Because it’s new, there aren’t a lot of chefs registered so you might have to wait a little while before you can find someone in your market but it’s an interesting alternative to some of the existing take-and-bake options already in the  marketplace.

The site includes ratings and reviews to help ensure some form of quality control but it obvioulsy could have some drawbacks in terms of knowing what kind of meal you may be getting.   If you’re skeptical, many of the chefs will come to your home to cook for you so that might be a good way to give the service a test run.  Of course, there also are pickup and delivery options. 

It will be interesting to see if this service takes off but I think there definitely is a certain set of the population that could find a pseudo “personal chef” kind of appealing.

Today Sid Ganis, the president of the MPAA, announced that the best picture category at the OSCARS would double up from the current five nominees to the seemingly self indulgent ten. He says it will make the race “more interesting and less cloistered” and may even make room for a “little one” (read: indie) or even (gasp!) a comedy. I’m not convinced his intentions are so pure.

Traditionally, the Acad tends to recognize serious dramas with genre pictures, comedies, movies that are hugely popular at the box office, documentaries, animated movies, and foreign pictures almost always missing the cut.

Take 2008 as a case study. The best picture nominees were Slumdog Millionaire, The Reader, Milk, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, and Frost/Nixon. The big guffaw came when both Wall-E and The Dark Knight were left out of the running. Both were of the best reviewed movies of the year and were, by any stretch of the imagination, better than the shameful, oscar-bait-holocaust-weepie The Reader. But they didn’t get nominated mainly because one made over 500 million at the US box office and the other was a cartoon.

So what does the expansion accomplish? The truth is that the move from five pictures to ten is merely a matter of money. What it does is try and boost box office revenues by giving the hugely profitable “Best Picture Nominee” tag to more movies. I try not to say this with any sort of bitter tone, at least not yet, because it is my hope that they will recognize  smaller movies that are of fantastic quality but limited scope, thus giving them a fighting chance at getting seen. Last year movies like “Man On Wire”, one of the best documentaries I’ve ever seen and one about tight rope walking no less, “4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days”, romanian Christian Mungiu’s verite drama about abortion, Jonathan Demme’s “Rachel Getting Married”, or even the stark Sundance hit “Ballast”, all got the short end of the stick because of their limited releases and niche appeal.

Hopefully, this action will allow voters to take more risks and truly honor those pics that deserve to be called “Best Picture” regardless of genre, scale, risk, revenue, or appeal. Hopefully. Most likely it will lead to self congratulatory back patting by the purveyors of the mediocre and the status quo. Maybe that’s a little pessimistic of me. Yea for movies!

There is much speculation in garages – and much salivating in sports marketing and sponsorship departments around the country — now that IndyCar driver Danica Patrick’s contract is coming to an end later this year. Will Patrick make the leap from IndyCars to stock cars? All tongue wagging aside, the thought brings up a number of interesting considerations to ponder about the future of this one-time IndyCar winner. If she does head over, it will certainly introduce a whole new dynamic to NASCAR. (Apologies in advance: I’m not including any sexy photos or links to racy GoDaddy commercials, nor am I referencing the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue in any way. You can find plenty of those things by doing your own Google search.)

NASCAR is a logical step for Patrick in terms of further developing both her skills and her brand. While some of the tracks and the format of the races are similar, the cars are a completely different kind of beast and the length of the races are in some cases double what she is used to running, meaning entirely different physical and mental challenges. Few drivers have made the leap and done so successfully, and while she’s not the first woman to hit the track in NASCAR, few have made a name for themselves that someone other than an avid fan would remember. Patrick, on the other hand, already has a name that others remember. In fact, only two NASCAR drivers currently have a bigger name than she: Jeff Gordon and Dale Earnhardt, Jr., as reported in NASCAR Scene this week. Clearly she’s doing something right.

If she makes the leap, it will only be to a top-notch team that can support her with the best equipment, best marketing and put her well on the path to winning a championship. Reports suggest the standard four: Richard Childress, Hendrick, Joe Gibbs, or Roush. But if I were her, I would seriously consider adding Stewart-Haas into the mix. Think about it: owner/driver Tony Stewart made the same leap from IndyCar to NASCAR years ago and has seen great success. Working with a mentor with similar experience, on a team that has new ownership allowing the chance to shape the future of the team, on equipment that was built to be the best but has only seen recent success with the addition of its new co-owner – sure, it would be a risk, but still a great opportunity to consider.

Regardless of performance on the track, Patrick has nailed what many of her peers fail to recognize or at least master: that driving a car in a major racing series is only half of racing. Those who “get it” understand that happy sponsors equate to a full ride. She has built herself a brand that that is part sex appeal, part badass. She is both celebrated and berated for both. It’s highly likely she’ll bring another love/hate relationship to the garage in the mold of Tony, Juan and Kyle — yet another plot twist in the soap opera that is NASCAR (and the reason why 75 million people still declare NASCAR as one of their favorite forms of entertainment today). Sure, she’ll have to prove herself once she’s there, but short term, the fact that we’re already talking about it shows just a glimmer of what she’d do for the sport. Let the silly season begin.

The trademark lawyers at Winthrop & Weinstine in Minneapolis run one of the liveliest, most accessible legal blogs I’ve run across. They call it DuetsBlog, a nod to the notion that marketers and trademark lawyers ought to be able to work in harmony.

Every Tuesday is guest blogger day, and today I’m their duet partner.

Editor’s note: This is John Reinan’s weekly marketing column for MinnPost. To view the original, go to http://tinyurl.com/nanmqz.

The world discovered the power of Twitter during the past week, when Iranians provided a real-time account of their country’s political unrest.

Minnesotans had a preview last fall, when political protesters and journalists used Twitter to chronicle events at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul.

Based on these undeniably compelling examples, it’s tempting to anoint Twitter as the next great development in communications — and, in fact, many have done so.

Our agency has used Twitter with good results for several clients. Intelligently applied, it can be a great way for marketers to get the word out about a product or an event.

But before you jump blindly on the Twitter bandwagon, let me offer a cautionary note in the form of a recent study by faculty and students at Harvard Business School.

Researchers sampled the usage patterns of more than 300,000 Twitter subscribers. What they found:

• Half of all Twitter users “tweeted” less than once every two months.

• The top 10 percent most prolific users accounted for more than 90 percent of the tweets.

• The median number of lifetime tweets per user is one — meaning half of all the people with a Twitter account never post a single tweet.

On most social networks, the researchers note, the top 10 percent of users are responsible for about 30 percent of the content.

What this means is that, at least for now, Twitter has collected a relatively small population of rabid users who tweet relentlessly. Meanwhile, the masses sign up for an account out of curiosity and rarely use it.

As the Harvard study notes, “Twitter resembles more of a one-way, one-to-many publishing service than a two-way, peer-to-peer communication network.”

In other words, Twitter isn’t a way to keep in touch with your friends, like Facebook. It’s more like a constant, flashing billboard carrying information from people with a definite message to get out.

For marketers, the implication is clear. If you can tap into a network of committed Twitter users, word about your product can spread quickly. Twitter super-users are engaged, in touch and love telling the world about their discoveries. It’s like in the days of old media, when a mention by a prominent newspaper columnist could dramatically boost your company’s profile.

But it’s not automatic. Your message must have meaning to its intended audience, and you’ve got to be engaged in the Twitterverse. If you’re one of those who tweets every two months, your odds of becoming the next Twitter sensation are minimal.