"So, maybe it wasn't executed in the right vien but the images of support that lit up Facebook over the past few days sent out a surprisingly positive and comforting message that I think a lot of people needed to see."

And that is precisely my point-- you don't know the context in which these images are appearing. Who posted them?

This tumblr site for example, took it upon themselves to create or solicit logos or print that seems in solidarity with the movement-- but it isn't necessarily coming from the brands themselves. If at all. And what's more the creators of the the tumblr site said as much-- implicitly.

A site like this one, however well-meaning, only serves to muddy the waters. I don't want to assume a brand is taking a stance. I want them to either come out and say one way or another, or assume it isn't relevant to their product. I'm sorry to put it in those terms, but I fail to see what certain categories of brands have to do with the issue. Maybe it's me but I really don't care where WD-40 stands on the issue of gay marriage. It just seems very misguided to me. This notion that every last brand is a giant evil corporate entity isn't helping. Chik-fil-a was a great example. Here we are with a company that is supposedly against gay marriage and yet the franchise owners act otherwise. My whole point is, putting this in black and white terms isn't helping. It's trying to simplify the issue for the masses but simplification is as bad as one-sidedness.

I also don't agree that self-promotion equals alignment any more than I agree a company saying it's for 'fair trade' and 'organics' without backing it up with any relevant organizations is substantive. I don't give the benefit of the doubt. Not when companies like Bayer were instrumental in the gassing of Jews during World War Two, when they could have brushed it off as "we were were just 'following orders,' but now we're against it." I'm sorry to put it like that but my point is companies will say and do a lot of things to not upset the bottom line.

My whole point in writing this article was to state the best laid plans of men don't necessarily translate into business. This article wasn't about taking a stand on gay marriage. At all. But it's like if you and I decided North Korea should be pro-Democracy and so we created a North Korean flag super-imposed on the South Korean flag and put it on tumblr and 'assumed north korea was pro democracy until we heard otherwise.' Would that really prove anything? I don't think so.

My larger point is, we are problem solvers. Not every answer to the problem is correct, even if it's with the best intentions as I believe this one is. But I'm not in favor of outcome-based education. It's not enough to say 'well we're trying," any more than it would be okay if we did mediocre advertising for any brand. We must challenge ourselves and push ourselves to really solve problems. Otherwise, we're part of the problem y half-assing it.

I also believe when it comes to these kinds of issues, mass communication and over-simplification, does not work. At the end of the day, if you want people on your side, you have to convince them one person at a time.

Excellent comment, Kat. Wow. That's indeed a mouthful.

"In a way, this is good because it means that corporations are going to be held to a greater standard in because everyone has become an independent watchdog and they can get their complaint heard by a wider audience than in the past. And it also means that corporations will have to use social media to further align themselves with things that people actually care about, like other people and causes."

Maybe. Or maybe not. Starbucks is a great example. They're awesome at social media, no one would argue that. Or are they? Where's the transparency? I thought you liked us?

For every Awesome cars and Toms, there are plenty of faceless companies not interested in corporate transparency but are merely happy to ride the wave of sameness from a voice-of-the-brand-standpoint. Because let's face it, so far every success story in real time marketing has been from the same voice, regardless of the brand, just as every social media mishap has been of the same voice regardless of the brand. it's the social media voice: on the good side it's approachable yet distant. Warm, but with no identifiable personality behind it, as you said. Talking to a can of coke. On the bad side is the only time it gets interesting: an accidental tweet about being drunk, like they did with Red Cross, or they purposefully step outside etiquette to "hijack" the conversation like Aurora Clothing stores did, during the Aurora shootings. Note, I am not saying these two examples are good social media. Rather, that they are the only times when brands actually start to sound human-- flawed, ugly, real, whatever-- because you see the human behind the keyboard.

The rest of the time it is a Carefully Controlled Brand Message.™

And how much longer before the consumer grows tired of it the same way they've grown tired of all forms of advertising, regardless of media? Remember: We disrupt for a living. People by and large generally do not like us. If they did, there'd be no Tivo.

Right now, I believe there is a bit of self-delusion going on. I'm not sure if it is really coming from the consumer or if it is a generally accepted theory of social media strategists, that somehow the consumer is ever more demanding of transparency and will take their likes and money and social currency elsewhere if they don't get what they want.

And what is it that they really want, exactly?

If suddenly Oreo's popularity goes down they'll start buying graham crackers? If one day Oreo makes a less than stellar real time tweet it's over? That's ridiculous on many levels. But the biggest is perhaps this: our brand choices take years and years of reinforcement, and it either has to take one humongo effort to change our behavior or we have to have our behavior changed over years and years. This has nothing to do with one tweet. Nada. We're all talkin' but we may not be buying. That was the whole point of my article. A point that was validated by the internal marketing team of a company so huge and so established its logo is long known throughout the world.

Also: for every Oreo, there is Apple. Apple does zilch social media and everyone buys their products. But how can this be? I mean we don't know how we should feel about them because they haven't tweeted us? Seriously, how dumb did I feel even writing that last sentence?

For every example there's an opposite. For every rule, there's an exception. Like you, I am not saying don't bother with social media at all.
I'm just saying, don't expect a hundred tweets to increase your sales by 1000% or even 1%, regardless of what a Social Media Guru/Ninja/Pirate tells you. Because A. the measurements are coming from the advertising platforms themselves B. unless they're buying throught he site there's no way to measure it accurately and C. if history tells us anything, the minute advertising stops being interesting (be it on tv, radio, or social media news feeds) the people will tune out. And if you people aren't willing to even hypothesize that last one is possible then they don't know advertising's history.