Outrageous Drinks The latest entry into the flavored vodka arena: peanut butter and jelly. While that might not be the vodka of choice for your next Bloody Mary, you have to admit you’re curious. That’s what marketers are counting on. Unusual flavors and packaging are helping companies in the alcoholic beverage market stand out in a saturated – so to speak – market. According to the latest data from the USDA Economic Research Service, consumers spent nearly $155 billion on alcoholic beverages in the U.S. in 2010. So, with a little creative packaging and a lot of innovation, spirits manufacturers are expanding the market. CNBC.com spoke with the founders of some of the most novel start ups to uncover the inspiration behind their products. Click ahead for some of the most unusual ways businesses are innovating in the world of alcohol. By Jill Weinberger 

Facebook’s payment network is its largest source of revenue after advertising. Primarily through selling credits for virtual goods for use in social games like Farmville, Facebook earned $557 million last year through its payments network. What’s most surprising to a cynic like me is how honestly Facebook accounts for revenues from the payment network. There’s no accounting trickery going on in that $557 million figure. Payment networks provide easy opportunities for abuse, especially when they are configured like Facebook’s. On Facebook, users purchase credits that can later be redeemed for virtual goods, like a cow in Farmville. This creates the opportunity to book revenues from the initial purchase—even though much of the initial purchase price will later have to be handed over to the merchant of the virtual goods. Groupon was doing something like this. If it sold a $50 coupon for $100 of services, it booked the entire $50 as revenue—even though it would have to remit much of that to the merchant actually providing the goods and services. I’m not an expert in accounting rules but that strikes me as at least a bit questionable. Groupon was able to count the entire purchase price of the coupon as revenue because it considered itself the “primary obligor” in the coupon purchases. This struck me—and many others—as a bit of a stretch. Weren’t the companies that provided the services the primary obligors? →