See the full gallery on Posterous

Pet Pics is a post from: Ryan O'Meara

It seems the concept is not lost on US talk show queen Oprah Winfrey, who recently said:

"Dogs are my favourite role models. I want to work like a dog, doing what I was born to do with joy and purpose. I want to play like a dog, with total, jolly abandon. I want to love like a dog, with unabashed devotion and complete lack of concern about what people do for a living, how much money they have, or how much they weigh. The fact that we still live with dogs, even when we don't have to herd or hunt our dinner, gives me hope for humans and canines alike."

The whole concept for my book came from a small passage in Dale Carnegie's self help bible; How to Win Friends and Influence People, where the legendary author talked about the value of observing how a dog wins friends with the simple wag of his tail.

This lead me to thinking about how my own dogs manage to win so many friends, deal with stressful situations and show incredible patience in the face of overwhelming temptation to lose their temper.

I tried to change my thinking in certain circumstances by adopting the position of 'what would my dog do here?'.

Admittedly it doesn't work all the time – after all, dogs do some things that we'd consider pretty unacceptable in certain social situations (need I say more?) but overall it's a great tool when trying to decide on the best course of action in trying to achieve a desired outcome.

If you want to read more, take a look here…

Think Like a Dog, Win at Life (Says Oprah Winfrey) is a post from: Ryan O'Meara

Like most (millions) of people, all I know is, I used it once, it was better and it then became my search engine of choice.

That has gradually changed.

More and more I've found myself not being satisfied with the Google results and have tried Bing as an alternative. The balance has actually shifted to such an extend now that I've made the monumental decision to set Bing as my default search engine.

Google needs to be careful about taking their eye off their main service (I say that as a shareholder). Their apparent obsession with entering the social media space that is already very well served by Twitter, Facebook and friends has not worked out well to date (Google Buzz was a real bomb).

No search engine will ever be perfect, but the gradual decline in Google's ability to actually deliver the answers to my search query is only cause for concern by virtue of the fact that Bing actually IS delivering the goods.

So today I mark the date. April 26th, 2012 – the first time in 10 years I have switched by default search engine away from Google.

It Finally Happened, Bing is Now a Better Search Engine Than Google is a post from: Ryan O'Meara

I think I ought to get straight to the point and answer my own question.

Are Kit Malthouse's views on how to tackle the problem of dangerous dogs moronic?

Why yes. Yes they are.

Kit Malthouse, writing in The Times newspaper has parroted, almost word for word, the rhetoric and mistruths spewed up by former Home Secretary Ken Baker in calling for a ‘gentle phasing out’ of ‘weapon dogs’.If ever you needed evidence that the ‘status dog’ message was going to cause more harm than good (as I have often repeated myself) then here we have it.

The RSPCA has their own ‘status dog’ campaign. I know this, because they sometimes send me emails asking for donations to help with the ‘status dog’ problem.

Still, to this day, nobody has EVER been able to give me a legal or even a loose definition of what a ‘status dog’ actually is, but let’s move on from that little oversight to the rantings of Malthouse – who is also a member of the London Assembly.

In his Times piece, he writes:

certain types of dogs are inherently more aggressive than other. At the top of the list are bull breeds, developed for one purpose: to attack and fight.

Bull terriers were bred as weapons, to duel or bait with, for their owner’s entertainment and status, and only once we recognise their atavistic instincts, as those who train them to fight do, can we start to frame legislation that may have a lasting effect. As well as punishing owners appropriately for use of this weapon, we should be bolder about removing it from circulation altogether.

I have emphasised the last line and I’m sure it will send a chill down the spine.

What, exactly, is he proposing?

We already HAVE breed specific legislation! We have the law that his equally ignorant partner in bull breed prejudice implemented in 1991. How can it be that we’ve had a law for nearly 20 years that was designed to do EXACTLY what these two are calling for, and yet the ‘status dog problem’ is, we are told, bigger than ever?

The irony seeping out of the entire article is pungent. But it gets worse, much worse.

In Ontario, that is what has happened. The provincial government produced a law that banned all bull breeds and derivatives, including pitbulls and the Staffordshire bull terrier. All such existing dogs had to be registered, neutered and muzzled, leading to the bull-types dying out and owners learning to love the labrador or pug. The result? A huge fall in the number of dog-related injuries and incidents. This approach manages to be both humane to those who have a dog of this type and draws a line under the problem.

Serious penalties will make dog owners think twice, but surely it is time for us to look to our Commonwealth cousins and find a way gently to phase out the canine weapons that terrorise the streets of Peckham, Toxteth and Moss Side.

You may have noticed, Mr Malthouse is actually calling for a ‘gentle phasing out’ (which means killing, by the way – gentle phasing out sounds better, but it means killing) of  bull breeds.

If you own a bull breed ‘or derivative’ I can imagine how your feeling right now.

But don’t worry, you can just ‘learn to love the Labrador or the Pug’.

Yes, here is a man who is clearly in touch, who clearly understands how to ‘fix’ the problem of irresponsible dog ownership – it involves ‘gentle phasing out’. That’s his final solution.

But let’s have a look at the height of his ill informed idiocy.

The provincial government produced a law that banned all bull breeds and derivatives, including pitbulls and the Staffordshire bull terrier. All such existing dogs had to be registered, neutered and muzzled, leading to the bull-types dying out and owners learning to love the labrador or pug.

The above is categorically untrue. Absolutely categorically not true. Don’t believe me? Well speak to anyone in Ontario about how well their breed ban is working out and ask anyone who had their dog taken and killed if they’ve, instead ‘learned to love the Labrador or Pug’ instead. (I’m not even TOUCHING the health issues related to a Pug, they’d be wasted on this guy.)

The process he’s described is the exact process we implemented in 1991. It’s BSL. And yet here we are, moaning about the rise in ‘weapon dogs’.

When will these people realise that the definition of madness is to do the same things over and over and expect a different result?

Want a further insight in to his thinking? Read this:

Clearly, owners are part of the solution: they are in possession of a weapon and should be treated as such

Yes, you read that correctly. Owners are only ‘part’ of the solution, this final solution for bull breeds.

Wrong.

Owners are ALL of the solution.

Dogs, all of them, are the product of their upbringing and environment.

Now, let’s examine some stats shall we:

Cadey-Lee Deacon: Killed by her grandparent’s dogs at her grandparent’s home (Rottweiler)

Ellie Lawrenson: Killed by her uncle’s dog whilst at her grandparent’s home  in care of grandmother (Pit Bull)

Archie-Lee Hirst: Killed by his grandparent’s dog whilst in the care of a young babysitter (Rottweiler)

Jaden Mack: Killed by his grandmother’s dogs whilst in care of grandmother who was asleep (Staffie and Jack Russell)

Now, remind me – which of these dogs are the ‘weapon’ dogs terrorising our city streets.

These are the dogs on the fatality list. Fatalities caused by dogs occur, almost without single exception, in the family home and tend to be carried out by dogs belonging to the family of the person (usually a child) who is killed.

There is a pattern to fatal dog attacks (have a read of the stats I’ve just posted, even a moronic legislator should be able to spot the pattern).

Malthouse opened his piece by citing The RSPCA:

The RSPCA says its hospitals are “full to the brim” with weapon dogs

Weapon dogs?

Could we do a BETTER job of ‘branding’ these dogs, because, you know, I think there’s still one or two of the thuglife on the street who haven’t heard yet.

Let’s call them; ‘Pyscho dogs’ – ‘Street killa’ – ‘Nike dogs’ – ‘Thugz dogz’ – ‘Beast dogz’.

Because the ONLY job being done with ignorant, ill informed and, frankly, despicable statements like this is creating a DEMAND for the dog from the very people they’re moaning about.

Previously, I wrote ‘What does Alice Cooper and the Dangerous Dogs Act Have in Common?’

By banning something, by whipping up a frenzy about it, by ‘branding’ it, you create a DEMAND for it from the exact demographic you are complaining about.

The history of the world teaches us lessons in this respect.

When you get a locality which becomes a hotspot for suicides, the media coverage and ‘hype’ adds to the problem. We know this to be true.

When you give certain media coverage to the types of teens who enter schools and take lives, it adds to the problem. We know this be true.

When you stick a label on a record ‘Parental Discretion is Advised’ you may as well have done the marketing yourself, to the demographic who you are trying to ‘shield’.

When we spit up a frenzy about ‘weapon dogs’ you are, I guarantee, whetting the appetite for these breeds by the demographic who are responsible for the suffering.

Ignorance may be bliss, but it leads to an exacerbation of the problem.

These labels don’t help. They hinder.

Let’s remind ourselves of some definitive facts:

Cruelty to animals is a crime.
Deliberately intimidating people (with dog or without) is a crime.

So, how about this for a radical idea – if you catch someone being cruel to a dog, you prosecute them under the laws that were put in place for that crime. If you catch someone deliberately intimidating people (with a dog or without) then you prosecute them under the laws that apply. Simply going on ANOTHER dog killing spree will not only fail to resolve the problem, it will spell disaster, resentment and any of the many THOUSANDS of responsible owners of beautiful bull breeds whom Matlhouse would like to ‘gently phase out’, you might want to contact him and let him know your opinion on whether you should be forced to ‘learn to love the Labrador or Pug’.

It is already a crime to do what these youths are being accused of.

A continuation of the failed policies of the Baker government will spell yet more failure.

That there are people who hold these views and happen to have a position of power, makes me – genuinely – ashamed to share the same planet as them, let alone the same country.

Contact Kit Malthouse

Kit Malthouse on Dangerous Dogs, Moronic Views? is a post from: Ryan O'Meara

With more and more ‘designer’ or hybrid dogs making the headlines featuring the likes of Puggles, Golden Doodles, Cockerpoos, Pome-Pekes and other elaborately titled canine crosses, it prompted us to wonder, exactly how did we arrive at Afghans, Airedales and Alaskan Malamutes when we started out with the animal known to most as the ‘ultimate dog’ our canine’s cousin, the wolf? What precisely is a dog breed and how on earth does one go about creating one?

People most commonly use the word breed to describe a type of dog that displays characteristics interrelated to its name. But the concept of breed is far more complex than simply applying a label to a dog which looks a certain way.

The ancestry of the dog can be traced back as far as sixty million years. A weasel like creature called the Miatis is thought to have demonstrated the first characteristics of the animal now recognised as Canis lupus familiaris, or plain-old pet dog to you and me. It is thought that this creature evolved into the early wolf.

All the canine sub-species are scavengers by nature, like the jackal and coyote and this was certainly the case for the wolf. It is though the wolf discovered easy pickings in around the waste dumps established near human settlements and as people began to see certain characteristics in the wolf which they thought would be of great help to their development as a race, attempts were made to domesticate the animal and use a selection of his most desirable character traits to man’s advantage.

Once wolves and humans became comfortable in each other’s presence, the wolf began to readily accept his subdominant role within the partnership and thus domestication as we know it, began in earnest.

Certain wolves would display particular character traits such as an instinct for guarding and those individuals who also displayed the physical characteristics to make them a force to be reckoned with would be selected for breeding in order to produce strong, confident offspring capable of protection. This is probably the earliest example of selective breeding of the dogs we know and love today.

As the selective breeding processes became more widely practised by humans, certain characteristics were developed to aid them. Dogs were bred for three main purposes, to hunt, guard and herd. As these functional breeds of dog were becoming more established, cross breeding was taking place in order to refine certain necessary attributes further.

A large dog which happened to be particularly quick over long distances may be bred with a smaller example in an attempt to develop nimble, high stamina offspring for use when hunting. Overtly aggressive canines would be bred to be as large as possible to produce effective guards for protection of the human settlements. Naturally instinctive hunters would be bred as large or as small the quarry they’d be expected to hunt. Selective breeding was in full swing.

This early form of selective breeding is how we eventually arrived at so many different breeds of dog. From the Yorkshire Terrier to the Bull Mastiff, selection by humans as well as the occasional happy accident have been the driving force behind the breeds we know and love today.

As selective breeding continued, the physical and characteristic traits of the original foundation lines were becoming more and more diluted, although every dog, even today possesses many wolf-like characteristics.

Certain types of dog breed have evolved to perform certain functions for humans. Although nowadays dogs are more commonly kept as pets, some breeds retain the original characteristics for which they were bred – although it can certainly be argued that, in the western world at least, the main function of the dog is adequately described as: to be somebody’s pal.

The hound group for example consists of two sections. There are sight hounds and scent hounds. Sight hounds are one of the oldest types of dog still endemic today. He is quiet and graceful, he is bred to spot prey from distance, hunt the prey and kill the prey. Hounds which are commonly kept as pets today include Beagles, Greyhounds and Bassett hounds.

Terriers evolved from the hound group. Terriers take their name from the Latin ‘to go to ground’, which is what they were bred to do. Terriers were originally used for hunting small quarry such as badgers, rats and rabbits. Like the hounds, Terriers should have a strong thirst for work, a thirst that if not properly quenched can occasionally lead to unruly behaviour.

The toy group is the only group to have breeds which were bred solely for the purpose of companionship. The Shih Tzu was favoured by Chinese emperors in the late nineteenth century as a companion in the palace and it was bred specifically for such purposes as were other toy group members commonly referred to as ‘lap dogs’.

The concept of what a breed actually is frequently provokes confusion today, even amongst experts. What constitutes a separate breed if two dogs look the same and were bred for the same purpose? Why are Norwich and Norfolk Terriers classed as separate breeds now when before they were the same? Why do small cosmetic differences such as ear position result in a difference in breed, when something such as major size difference does not? How can purebreds resemble cross-breeds and cross-breeds be passed off as purebreds?

All of these frequently asked questions strengthen the argument that the concept of what a breed is is commonly misinterpreted.

A dog breed is probably best described as, “a grouping of descendants categorised using criteria relevant to its behavioural and physical qualities, desirable to those who refined the line of genetic descent”. But how does one create a breed?

The offspring of a mating between two purebred dogs of different breeds is a cross-breed, a mongrel, a mutt, a dog eligible for Scrufts but not Crufts if you will. Technically speaking, the fact that both parents happen to be established, recognised pedigree breeds makes no difference to the status of the offspring.

Often described as a first-time cross, the world is seeing a huge increase in demand for ‘designer dogs’ such as the Puggle (Beagle cross Pug, the Cockerpoo (Cocker cross Poodle) and many others with equally fanciful names. The newly elected American president expressed particular interest in one of these ‘breeds’ when he added a Labradoodle to his shortlist. Although he ditched that choice and went instead for a Portuguese Water dog.

So what’s new? What traits does a Cockerpoo posses that a ‘purebred’ Cocker Spaniel or Poodle lacks?

If you or I were charged with the task of creating a dog breed, the criteria being a small to medium sized dog with a happy personality, willingness to work and learn but with a non-shedding coat suitable for people who don’t have the time to tramp 10 miles per day in order to keep this creature happy, where would we start?

We’d more than likely look at the Cocker but we’d fall short on the issue of shedding. We’d examine the qualities of the Poodle but we’d find they come in either small or large packages not small to medium and as a worker, they’d be outperformed by many of their gundog counterparts. If only the working qualities of the Cocker could be bundled with the non-shedding coat aspects of the Poodle and everything would be perfe…..wait, I’ve got it. I see a mating in the offing! Wow, how easy is this going to be. If I mate a Poodle and a Cocker I’ll get the best of both worlds – won’t I?

Erm, no. Not quite as simple as it seems.

Deliberate cross breeding is, essentially, selective breeding. There’s a problem though.

It takes several generations to “breed true.” Compare yourself to your brother, sister or even your cousins. Do you all have the same looks, the same personality, the same motivations or intelligence levels? The chances are, you won’t. I, for example, am much clevererer and more handsomer and generally blessed with more modesty than my sibling. He, however, plays guitar far better than I play drums. We’re of the same parents (we assume) but whilst I am blessed with modesty, good looks and breath that smells like rose petals, my brother plays a mean guitar whereas I, no matter how hard I try, sound as acoustically appealing as a man shouting in to a bucket. Oh well, least I have my breath, looks and modesty and self esteem.

Each of us has some of the “best” traits of our parents. But they’re invariably coupled with the worse traits or, shall we say, less desirable traits. In some cases we may only inherit the less desirable traits of both parents at the expense of any of their best traits, our own children however may be fortunate to pick up the good traits we missed out on. And so it is with dogs.

Generation after generation of selective breeding is required before we establish a new breed. Is that a bad thing? Absolutely not.

No one could argue we should ‘stick’ with what we have in terms of pedigree dogs (BUT THEY DO) and it’s a sure fire certainty that gene pools can bottleneck to the point where new blood is required. Sorry, I should clarify that. It’s a sure fire certainty that gene pools HAVE bottlenecked to the point where new blood is required.

Should that put you off splashing the cash on a Cockerpoo, a Puggle, a Jackador or a Spoodle? Well. Maybe.

Unless you’re buying into a dog which is several generations down the line in terms of a selective breeding program, you are effectively purchasing a cross breed. Cross breeds come with many, many advantages as pets but should you be charged £600 or upwards for one?

Well no. Not in this writer’s (less than) humble opinion. You should not.

Especially when you consider how many fantastic cross and pedigree breeds are desperate for homes in Britain’s animal shelters, all of whom have the same qualities to offer. How the price of a dog is determined is a matter of some controversy and it certainly confuses me. If a ‘pedigree’ Bulldog has a going rate of £1,200 why shouldn’t any other ‘breed’ be priced according to the ‘market rate’? Another breed that, dare I say, might ‘last a bit longer’ and come with less ‘manufacturing faults’.

And here we see the start of this ethical minefield. ‘Market rate’. We’re talking about sentient, lifelong companions here – not designer handbags.

The marketing of dogs is a trend set to continue. It’s human nature to aspire to own something a little different, a little fancy or in short supply. It goes without saying, the commercialised marketing of dogs is a recipe for disaster and THIS is where the problem lies.

Watch this:

“Oh what’s that unusual dog you have there?”

“It’s a Pomapekeapatador” (quite obviously a Pomerianian mixed with Pekignese and a little Patterdale and Labrador thrown in)

“Incredible, I’ve never heard of them. Where would I go about finding one?”

“The Internet. But be warned, they’re very rare” (and therefore expensive, desirable and I’ve got one and you haven’t)

See how this works? The Pomapekepatador is what many generations refer to, rather cruelly, as a Heinz 57 (a bit of everything). A cross breed, a mix, a mongrel, a mutt. And they are as important, as clever, as giving and as worthy as any pedigree breed and there’s more than likely a rescue shelter near you chock-full of them.

Don’t be fooled, ALL dogs are designer dogs. They all have the same ancestors remember!

And if you’re really keen on modern, trendy and fashionable then you really need to consider ‘ethical’ as a lifestyle choice. So if you’re inclined toward designer, trendy, ethical dogs – you’ll struggle to do better than www.dogsblog.com – no better designer dog than those on offer (in their thousands) at rescue centres all over the UK. Just because they’re not selling for £1,000 a piece doesn’t make them any less dog – anyone who thinks differently should really come talk to me about the litter of Bengal Chihuahuas I’ve just bred. They’re SO rare, SO desirable and I’m only asking £10,000 per pup. Yes, I accept PayPal – it’s: ‘isawyoucomingyoumug@k9magazine.com’

Designer Dogs: What The Hell is a Pomapekeapatador? is a post from: Ryan O'Meara

Here you can watch a low-res version of the video which will probably produce a funny lip-sync effect. If you’d care to watch the higher res version of the show and are based in the UK, you can watch it on the BBC Iplayer, here (our part is 23 minutes in).

K9 Magazine on BBC Working Lunch is a post from: Ryan O'Meara

Look, I Accidentally Proved There’s No God!

One of my favourite episodes of The Simpsons is the one where Homer discovers that for most of his life he’s been living with a crayon lodged in his brain. Realising this blockage is probably the cause of his mental slowness he opts to have it surgically removed and instantly becomes a nerdy brain-box.

He soon discovers that being a nerdy know it all is no fun, people seem to like him less. The stand out moment happens when Homer meets his God-fearing neigbour Ned Flanders who is on his way to attend church when Homer utters the immortal line….

“I was working on a flat tax proposal and I accidentally proved there’s no God.”

He hands Flanders his theory and then begins sticking his ‘no God’ pamphlet under the windscreen wipers of all the parked cars of Springfield’s churchgoers.

Flanders takes a look at Homer’s ‘no God’ thesis and worries aloud:

“Well this can’t be, no, wait, this, erm, no…” – he then sighs, defeated – “It’s air tight. Can’t let this little doozy get out.”

He then proceeds to set it alight.

It was a brilliant, fantastic exchange. Homer has become so analytical he’s managed to find ‘air tight’, conclusive proof that there’s no God – presenting it immediately to the most God fearing person he knows he’s too busy trying to spread the news of his finding to others that he doesn’t even look behind him to see Flanders setting the paper on fire.

When I first read Patrick Burns’ brilliant, fantastic article ‘Inbred Thinking‘ I immediately thought of Homer’s exchange with Flanders.

‘It’s air tight’ I thought. My word, they WILL want to burn this!

I loved the piece so much I asked Patrick (and was graciously given) permission to publish the article, un-touched and un-edited in the printed edition of K9 Magazine. Since then I have told as many people who’ll listen to go and read it.

I can then tell, rather quickly, whether someone is going to do a Flanders (“Can’t let this little doozy get out”) or whether it can serve the far higher purpose of instilling a somewhat air-tight notion that close inbreeding and a closed studbook is so incredibly detrimental to the health of pedigree dogs, we stupid, crayon-in-brain humans should be flayed for ever having stuck with its concept for this long. We’re in 2009 for God’s, erm, I mean Homer’s sake!

Institutional abuse of animals is no more forgiveable just because it might happen to be endorsed by people who say they care and who profess to know what they’re doing.

To quote one of my favourite modern-day thinkers, Nassim Nicholas Taleb:

“it’s totally irresponsible to make people rely on you without telling them you’re incompetent.”

There is, inherently, nothing wrong with dog shows, nothing wrong with show dogs, nothing wrong with breeders, pedigree dogs – none of it – what IS wrong and what absolutely MUST stop, right now are the breeding practices and competitive elements that are leading to crippling, debilitating disease and hereditary defects which are killing dogs. And we DO know which elements they are. And we DO know that they could be stamped out if those in position to make changes to the rules were to do the right thing.

So, even if you’re dog show enthusiast or even if you’re not; please, please, please give this article your time. Even if you chose to be all Ned Flanders about it, at least you’ll know you’re only kidding yourself!

Inbred Thinking >

(Incidentally, this particular episode of The Simpsons concludes when Homer decides he can’t live with knowing he’s right, with the intelligent, analytical brain – so he opts to have the crayon inserted back in to his brain so he can revert back to a life of blissful ignorance. How tragic. How very, very tragic )

Accidentally Proving There is no God is a post from: Ryan O'Meara

"It took us 160 years to reach one million circulation, but only seven years to reach one and a half million. We now expect to reach two million within five years, fuelled by rapid growth in digital circulation. By then we expect to have more digital than print readers."

The future for publishing is bright, it's digital.

Read more…

Digital Subscribers Boost For Economist is a post from: Ryan O'Meara

Really? Dog breads?

Surely you mean dog breeds Ryan?

Indeed. This is somewhat of a soul cleansing process.

You see, one of the more stressful elements of publishing a printed magazine vs digital is the margin for error.

What happens is this:

You have your proof reading team go through the whole publication checking for factual elements, spelling, typos etc.

Then what happens is, you get the magazine back from the printer and start randomly flicking through the pages then boom!! The very first page you turn to you notice the spelling error. No turning back.

The rare spelling error within the pages of the magazine is just about forgiveable but there's one page that you REALLY don't want to mess up…the cover.

Further, you REALLY don't want to make the most elementary, embarrassing mistake of going to press 'dog breads' on your cover when you really mean dog breeds.

But that's exactly what we did with one of the earliest editions of K9 Magazine. Dog breads.

There's just no possible way to extradite one's self from such a calamitous cock up.

The only saving grace (let's not kid ourselves here, there is NO saving grace) is the fact that more than 2,400 people in the UK alone perform searches for phrases such as 'which is the best dog bread for kids', 'list of all dog breads', 'how many dog breads are there' and lots of other variations on the dog breads theme.

I may have mentioned before why I'm a big fan of digital publishing and no, it's not exclusively due to the fact that there is a larger degree of flexibility and the opportunity to turn dated information in to current, but I'll certainly be happy to admit I don't miss the night terrors and sweats (or should that be sweets?) of scanning through a new edition only to criticise and rant about the things that went wrong.

Any way, what is the best dog bread for children?

Dog Breads – What’s The Best Dog Bread? is a post from: Ryan O'Meara

According to Gladwell, Connectors are the people who "link us up with the world … people with a special gift for bringing the world together."  They are "a handful of people with a truly extraordinary knack for making friends and acquaintances".  These individuals enjoy large social networks of over one hundred people. Gladwell attributes the social success of Connectors to "their ability to span many different worlds [... as] a function of something intrinsic to their personality, some combination of curiosity, self-confidence, sociability, and energy."

Mavens, he suggests, are "information specialists", or "people we rely upon to connect us with new information."

They accumulate knowledge, especially about the marketplace, and know how to share it with others. The author cites Mark Alpert as a prototypical Maven. A man who is "almost pathologically helpful", further adding, "he can't help himself". Alpert not only gathers information on the best prices and deals on a mass of different products, his biggest kick comes from telling people that information. Helping them.

He puts in all the work and then revels in the joy of giving the information to others. He rewards himself by giving something he worked for, without pay. In this vein, Alpert himself concedes, "A Maven is someone who wants to solve other people's problems, generally by solving his own".

Due to their knowledge, social skills, and ability to communicate, Mavens are able to spread valuable information and this can be pivotal in starting epidemics.

Salesmen are "persuaders", charismatic people with powerful negotiation skills. They tend to have an indefinable trait that goes beyond what they say, which makes others want to agree with them. Gladwell talks about a superstar salesman called Tom Gau who, as Gladwell observed for himself, had an inbuilt ability to get people to like him.

The way he would talk to people, the way he would listen to them, the minute aspects of his body language toward people, his timing, his posture, his genuine personality were what made Gau the incredible sales person. He was able to sell because he understood the inherent secret that our friend the dog possesses in spades; we get what we want/need by first understanding and giving what someone else desires.

It's for these reasons, I must declare that the dog is the greatest sales animal in the history of the animal world and the reason why so many companies and brands like to deliver their message via man's best friend.

Don’t believe me?

Think about how many times you see dogs in advertising. How many times have you seen dogs used in commercials designed to sell products or services that have absolutely nothing to do with dogs?

Paint. Cars. Toilet roll. Insurance. Food. The list could span virtually every consumer product or service. The dog is used more than any other animal in advertising. Why? Because us simple folk have an inbuilt switch that makes us feel trust, endearment, joy, integrity, fun, loyalty, honesty, adoration and all manner of other positive emotional connections when we see a Labrador ‘telling us’ to buy a certain brand of toilet paper as opposed to a slick sales pitch from one of our own kind. The connection between the advertising industry, harnessing thousands of years of canine domestication, to sell us things was no accident.

People like dogs. And even those people who don’t, there is still an inherent association with the animal’s ability to convey positive personality traits. We DO associate dogs with acts of immense bravery. We do association dogs with loyalty. We do associate dogs with human traits such as honesty and integrity. We can’t help it, and the reason is…because dogs possess those traits in spades.

Why Dogs Are The Advertiser’s Best Friend is a post from: Ryan O'Meara