Over the past year, M&A has been on a starvation diet. Then again, with a terrible recession and credit crunch, what do you expect?

Yet, while it is still toot soon to tell, there are signs that things are beginning to improve. Just look at what's cooking between Kraft Foods (NYSE: KFT) and Cadbury (NYSE: CBY). Both global giants are involved in, well, an M&A food fight.

Quietly, chocolate companies have been snapping up little makers of organic and fair trade chocolate; Cadbury, PLC (NYSE: CBY) started the trend by buying Green and Black's in 2005, and then Hershey (NYSE: HSY) jumped on the bandwagon, buying Dagoba Organic Chocolate in 2006.

Since then, fairly traded and organic chocolate bars have become more and more popular among consumers; while exact numbers are hard to find, organic chocolate sales have more than quadrupled since 2000 and were $94 million in 2007. Fair trade chocolate sales have been nearly doubling on a year-over-year basis since 2000.

This post is part of AOL Money & Finance's Best & Worst in Money 2008 feature.

There have always been brand decisions that seem to come out of left field. Some make you wonder what they were thinking, while others make you wonder what took so long. The year 2008 was no exception.

It came as something of a surprise when in June Exxon Mobil Corp. (NYSE: XOM) announced that it would sell off many of its retail gasoline stations to local owners. While Exxon continued to post record quarterly earnings, and fuel prices spiked to all-time highs earlier this year, gasoline retailers in fact have faced razor-thin margins and fierce competition. It would take a significant boost in prices to make gas stations profitable, a notion that didn't seem to worthwhile back in June. Wonder what they think of that decision now that gasoline prices have fallen to a multiyear low?

I recall when Kinko's, the photocopying and faxing service provider with the catchy name, seemed to explode out of nowhere. And it seemed a little sad when FedEx Corp. (NYSE: FDX) gobbled up the successful upstart. But it was probably inevitable that the Kinko's name would be phazed out. It took quite a while, but FedEx finally announced eariler this year that it would just that. The newly christened FedEx Office (not so catchy, is it?) wants to shed itself of the image of a photocopying and faxing place to that of a back-office services provider for small to mid sized businesses. But will that turn out to be worth the $891 million they estimate the name change would cost? Time will tell.

This post is part of our Ads Gone Bad series. Share your thoughts and memories of this ad in the comments, and be sure to check out our other posts on marketing gone wrong.

Mars Inc., has made not just one, but two ad campaigns for its popular Snickers bar seem to sneer at gays. Mars, one of the biggest privately held, family-owned companies, makes many of the world's most popular candies: Snickers, M&Ms, Twix, Starburst (along with Uncle Ben's Rice and pet food like Whiskas), but both of the ads gay rights groups found offensive were for the Snickers bar.

The first gay-themed Snickers ad made a big splash in Super Bowl XLI in 2007. Two mechanics get so wrapped up in eating the opposite ends of Snickers bar that their lips touch, prompting them to decide to "do something manly" lest they accidentally catch gayness -- so they pull their chest hair out.

Hershey (NYSE: HSY) is having growth problems. Not only is it tough just navigating this high-inflationary period, but it's difficult keeping up with the competition. Consumers have a lot of candy choices, and even though Hershey is a big brand name in confections, it thinks it can do better in the marketing department. According to this Wall Street Journal (subscription required) piece, Hershey intends on implementing a 20% increase in spending for promotions.

This double-digit jump in marketing is a smart move, but it won't be easy to digest. With the aforementioned inflationary pressures on the rise, Hershey is going to be sufficiently challenged to push growth while balancing the upward trends in input costs. But is there really a choice here? When you have a super brand like Hershey running into trouble, the thing you need to do is get out there and prop up the inherent equity of the product portfolio.

Yet, there's a bit of a conundrum here, I think. Hershey needs to get people to buy its delicious candies (I'm certainly a fan of the awesome Reese's Peanut Butter Cup). Which demographic loves sweets? Younger kids. They would have represented a great group for growth opportunities, but Hershey has to be careful about marketing too much to this demo since the country has, rightly so, been focusing on healthy alternatives to fatty foods. Even though Hershey has been trying to make some of its portfolio healthier, the flagship brands will always be, one assumes, sugary and full of empty calories. In fact, Hershey is more than aware of this issue, as this corporate link demonstrates.

My only penny stock is SpaceDev Inc. (OTCBB: SPDV) and I am not recommending you buy any. I do not recommend any penny stocks and will leave that to others.

If you did buy some, it would probably move the stock because the trading volume is so low that you can actually have an impact. I'm losing a few hundred dollars over the course of about two years.

I bought the company after I had witnessed both launches of Space Ship One into sub-orbital space and wanted to keep track of this interesting company that created the motor and fuel technology.

This week, the company announced that its devices successfully landed on Mars. SpaceDev "provided a wide array of hardware and instruments for the Phoenix Lander that successfully landed on Mars' north arctic plane Sunday, May 25th at 4:53 pm PDT."

SPDV closed Wednesday at $0.62, unchanged. Its 52 week range is $0.51 to $1.05. There are no significant metrics worthy of discussion, but as a shareholder I am supporting an important aerospace company that is designing and building cutting edge space-age technology and keeping me informed and educated. It is located in Southern California, allowing me the opportunity to visit the company easily.

There is little chance of a big financial reward, unless one of its technologies finds some broad popular use, but sometimes there are other things in life that mean more.

Sheldon Liber is the CEO of a small private investment company and the principal for design and research at an architecture & planning firm. He writes the columns Chasing Value and Serious Money. Disclosure: I own shares of SPDV.

On CNBC today, Warren Buffett talked about politics, foreign currency – and oh, his financing of Mars's $23 billion deal for Wrigley (NYSE: WWY). He likes the deal for a variety of core reasons: a sustainable long-term business, strong management and the fact that the business is something that's easy to understand (chewing gum is fairly basic, right?)

Yes, this is vintage Buffett.

As usual, the deal started with a phone call to the oracle of Omaha, and he wasted little time in getting things moving.

Wrigley is the largest maker of gum and Mars is a large maker of candies, with Snickers, M&Ms and so on in its arsenal of products. In all likelihood, this deal will spur further M&A activity in the global sector. Such deals will help companies deal with spiking commodities' prices as well as the difficulties in creating new brands.

What's more, both Wrigley and Mars are family dynasties. The former got its start in 1891 and the latter was launched in 1911. Basically, for such firms to link up, it's important that the principals understand the complexities of family dynamics. And, for the most part, Buffett seems to understand such things. In other words, he is a value-added investor who takes the long view. More importantly, he has a war chest of over $40 billion. So as time goes by – and more family businesses look to consolidate -- I'm sure Buffett will get more phone calls.

Tom Taulli is the author of various books, including The Complete M&A Handbook (www.mergerbook.com) and is also a principal in Averiware, which provides an ERP system to small and midsize businesses.

MAJOR PAPERS:

• Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc (NYSE: BRK.A) and Mars are in talks to purchase Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. (NYSE: WWY) for over $22B, the Wall Street Journal reported. An announcement may come as soon as today.
• The Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc (NYSE: RBS) will start the integration of ABN Amro Holding's (NYSE: ABN) investment bank into its global markets division, the Financial Times reported. This process will most likely result in the paring of 7,000 jobs.

OTHER PAPERS:

• According to the New York Post, IAC/InterActiveCorp. (NASDAQ: IACI) Chairman Barry Diller is expected to meet with his board this week to restart the process of breaking up his company into five separate pieces, sources said. At the same time, Diller and Liberty Media Corporation (NASDAQ: LMDIA) Chairman John Malone are continuing to talk about a deal that would trade one or more of IAC's assets for Liberty's ownership stake in IAC.
• The UK Times has learned that Numis Securities, the stockbroking group headed by Michael Spencer, is in "advanced talks" to buy the UK equities business of The Bear Stearns Companies Inc (NYSE: BSC). Numis may look to hire a team of 25 from Bear.

Why it makes sense to merge two big candy companies is a mystery. Nonetheless, Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE: BRK.A) and privately held Mars plan to spend $22 billion to buy gum company Wrigley (NYSE: WWY).

According to The Wall Street Journal, "Terms of the deal weren't immediately clear, but Wrigley has a stock market value of about $17.3 billion and it appeared that the buyers were prepared to offer a rich premium."

Wrigley does well outside the US while Mars does well in the domestic market.

What exactly Buffett and Mars get is unclear. The buyout would be at a price near the company's two-year high. The gum company's profits and revenue have been steadily rising, but it is not a spectacular growth business.

There would not appear to be a lot of redundant costs between the two firms. One makes mostly chocolate and the other, gum. It is questionable that they can benefit from one another's distribution networks. Both brands are widely available in the US and overseas.

Warren Buffett usually does well with his investments. How this one will work out is difficult to divine.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com and writes Ten Stocks Under $10.

Candy-making behemoth Hershey (NYSE: HSY) moved under the earnings spotlight this morning to report a (gulp) 65% decline in fourth-quarter profit. The company banked $54 million, or 24 cents per share, compared to a year-ago profit of $153.6 million (65 cents per share). Excluding items related to changes in the firm's global supply chain, the firm would have earned $124.1 million, or 54 cents per share, a penny shy of analysts' consensus estimate of 55 cents.

Sales for the reporting period were virtually flat, at $1.34 billion, narrowly edging past the Street's expectations of $1.31 billion. For all of 2007, HSY sales came in at $4.95 billion, a modest $2.5 million advance from 2006 sales.

Whoever said, "Don't buy the cow when you can get the milk for free," clearly wasn't working for The Hershey Company (NYSE: HSY). The nation's largest candy maker -- with brands such as Jolly Rancher, Reese's, and Kit Kat under its umbrella -- said rising dairy costs contributed negatively to the company's bottom line.

This morning, Hershey reported third-quarter net income of $62.8 million, or 27 cents per share, a 69% drop from year-ago results. Excluding a restructuring charge of 41 cents per share, Hershey's would have earned 68 cents per share, or 3 cents south of the 71 cents expected on Wall Street.

Revenue fell 1.2% to $1.4 billion, on par with analysts' expectations. For 2007, Hershey now expects to earn between $2.08 and $2.12 per share, down from a prior outlook of $2.25 per share.

A robot working at General Motors Corp. (NYSE: GM) makes a mistake, gets fired and commits suicide. No, wait, the robot wakes up and realizes it was only having a bad dream. Not funny, says the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention.

Like the Snickers male-on-male kissing ad that I blogged about Tuesday, the GM robot committing suicide ad is getting a lot of negative criticism. Unlike the Snickers ad, which was pulled by the Mars company after the negative feedback, General Motors says it has "no plans" to drop the spot and plans on airing it again during the Feb. 25 Academy Awards broadcast.

To me, the only thing worse than having an ad that is received so poorly is not having the good sense to pull it fast enough. GM likely spent over $2 million for the backlash they are facing now -- including former Energy secretary Donald Hodel saying that anyone who loses someone to suicide in the near future should consider suing GM. So why exactly would GM pay more to put this same ad on the Oscar stage?

Looking at this another way, I think this sort of thing is likely to drive down the price of advertising at the Super Bowl, which is often criticized as being a waste of money for larger, established corporations.

"Quick, do something manly!" one of the actors in the Snickers ad exclaimed, after kissing his male counterpart.

Too late. The male-kissing-male ad, which was featured during Super Bowl XLI on Sunday, will not air again after complaints from the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation and the Human Rights Campaign.

Maybe it was the wrong tactic -- this year's Super Bowl was kicked off by Cirque de Soleil and featured Prince at half time. Maybe they should have gone for a more metrosexual look. After all, a Chevrolet ad featuring topless men (including the Naked Cowboy) was one of the more highly rated ads of this year's Super Bowl.

But personally, if I had to choose an ad not to see again, it would be the General Motors (NYSE: GM) ad with the robot worker committing suicide. Did it not occur to the company, which is in the process of major downsizing, that that ad may just hit a little too close to home?

Eric Buscemi is an editor at Theflyonthewall.com.