I noticed a growing trend in my feeds today - a lot of chatter about linking social profiles and a general loathing of the practice.

Scott Stratten (@unmarketing on Twitter) used a bit of humor to illustrate his disdain. No surprise there; Scott is the king of tongue-in-cheek humor. But, he’s also a pretty smart guy. I recommend following him if you don’t already.

For those new to the game, linking your social profiles refers to the process of essentially syndicating your posts from one network to another network. For example, if you link Facebook and Twitter, your Facebook status updates will be posted as tweets to your Twitter account. Conversely, if you send a Twitter update, that content will be posted to your Facebook profile. You can do the same with Twitter and LinkedIn. You get the idea.

While there are certainly times where is makes sense to post content to multiple social networks, it is important to understand that each network has a unique audience and purpose. Therefore, a “one-size-fits-all” approach to content doesn’t make sense.

Think about it: chances are, your professional connections (LinkedIn) aren’t going to see much value in your tweet that states, “Grabbing a burger for lunch.” Similarly, your Facebook friends probably aren’t going to care about the link you shared to a comprehensive white paper illustrating the growing trend of Six Sigma certifications in companies with fewer than 150 employees (I made that up, by the way).

Different networks. Different people. Different relationships. Different expectations.

Besides, with tools like HootSuite (aff.), TweetDeck, Seesmic and others that allow you to post to one or more social profiles from a single interface, there isn’t a need to use “traditional profile linking.” These tools allow you to control what content gets distributed to which social profile(s). Filtering your posts shows the people who care enough to connect with you that you care enough about them to not just spew things into their stream “because you can.”

What do you think? Is linking social profiles a good idea? Bad idea? Do you do it? Why or why not? What tips do you have?

I don’t remember all the details of how it happened. To be honest, it doesn’t matter because what I do know is this:

You do not have to know someone personally to care about them.

About a month or so ago, through a stream of tweets and blog posts surrounding the Evo Conference, I came across Catherine Connor’s blog, Her Bad Mother. While I was reading a post, I decided to click around. I clicked on a post called “Clockwatching Redux.”

What I read was an incredible story about a young boy (Catherine’s nephew) who was dying of Duchenne’s Muscular Dystrophy. What a cool kid. What a sad story.

As part of her post, Catherine shares Tanner’s “life list,” a list of goals he wants to achieve.

Life List For Tanner:

1. Help Tanner make his dreams come true before he dies. Like this one: take his cousins to Disney
2. And this one: meet an astronaut
3. And this one: be a cowboy for a day
4. And this one: visit Sesame Street
5. And this one: see a dinosaur
6. And this one: have a train holiday
7. And this one: be a pirate
8. And this one: be on television
9. And this one: have a real birthday party with lots of friends
10. And this one: meet a Disney Imagineer
11. And this one: make a dream come true for another boy with DMD
12. Find some way, any way, to make sure that he can die at home.
13. When he passes (*deep breath*) throw a big party with sparklers and cake and fireworks that celebrates how happy his life was, and how rich he made our lives, and pledge to always to do this, to celebrate him, by living our own lives as fully as we can.

One of them called to me - #2. I grew up with a love of space and was fortunate to live just a few miles from NASA in Florida as a kid. So, I got to see the museum, eat astronaut food, watch a live shuttle launch. But, this really jumped out at me because as a student at Indiana University, I was taking an elective course in kinesiology (I was a journalism major) in which one of the lectures was about the effects of space on the human body.

As fate would have it, the instructor’s brother was an active NASA astronaut who had just returned from a shuttle mission (and space walk!). He surprised us by having his brother give a guest lecture.

The brothers are great people and I have kept in touch (albeit not as well as I should have) over the years. Perhaps, for just this moment.

As soon as I read Tanner’s list, I opened my contacts, plucked out the name and sent an email. Within a few hours, I had a reply with an intent to help make Tanner’s dream (#2) come true.

I reached out to Catherine, and told her about this potentially happening. She was ecstatic. We are still working out details, but I cannot wait to see this happen.

However, this post is about what is happening right now. Scott Stratten, of “Un-marketing” fame, is hosting a Tweetathon for Tanner. The goal: raise $15K in 24-hours in an attempt to keep Tanner at home, essentially granting “wish” number twelve.

It is a sobering thought, but I know that we can make it happen.

Please consider making a donation. Just click the “ChipIn” button below.

I have to get this off my chest before I explode.

This all started as a result of my searching for Diet Trop-A-Rocka™ Tea, the flavor created by Bret Michaels as part of the final task on The Celebrity Apprentice. (I tried - and really liked - Compassionberry™ Tea created by Holly Robinson Peete, so I wanted to try Bret’s, too.)

In a May 24, 2010 BrandWeek interview, two Dr Pepper Snapple Group executives - SVP of Marketing Andrew Springate and EVP Jim Trebilcock - talked about the “restage” of the Snapple brand. For those of you that don’t know, a “restage” is the fancy term advertising executives use to describe the process of trying to resuscitate a virtually dead product or brand.

Springate explained:

[Snapple is] a good example of what we’ve been committed to as a company. About a year ago, [the brand] was floundering and it wasn’t very differentiated. We spent a lot of time really listening to our drinkers, found out what worked on the brand, and [discovered that] we needed to do some reformulation work and really find better ways to connect our product with them. So, about a year ago, we restaged it, [rolled out] new graphics, changed the formulation to really emphasize tasty black tea, healthy green teas and real sugar, and marketed that in a really big way, and all of that culminated in the Snapple-The Celebrity Apprentice [integration], and we saw great consumer response.

And in a bit of poetic irony, Trebilcock followed that up, saying:

It’s one of those stories where people love the brand, but they kind of fell away from it and didn’t think it was as relevant.

Where do I start?

The Snapple Fan Page on Facebook really tells the story because it completely contradicts what Springate asserts in his response.

He says Snapple is a “good example of what we’re committed to as a company.” A “good example” of “commitment?” Really? Committed to what? Committed to putting up a static fan page with a Snapple Real Fact or Best Stuff episode posted every few days for good measure while passionate brand ambassadors virtually implore you engage with them?

Springate continues, “We spent a lot of time really listening to our drinkers, found out what worked on the brand, and [discovered that] we needed to do some reformulation work and really find better ways to connect our product with them.”

There is so much crammed into that statement.

I am not going to argue that Snapple spent a lot of time “really listening to [their] drinkers.” Maybe they did. Or do. But, what good does it do if the people you are supposedly listening to don’t know they are being heard?! I couldn’t find a single instance where a response was issued to fans’ questions on the Snapple Fan Page. Not ONE!

Further, the people are telling you “what works” for the brand, and you are ignoring them!

Finally, the better way to “connect your product” to your target market is to ENGAGE THEM! They’re practically begging you!

Instead of patting themselves on the back for rolling out new graphics, reformulating (an already great product, I might add - remember “New Coke?”) and “marketing that in a really big way,” I’d argue it would be better to address the “great consumer response” you’ve been getting by acknowledging it.

And right there is the irony in Trebilcock’s statement:

It’s one of those stories where people love the brand, but they kind of fell away from it and didn’t think it was as relevant.

If Snapple doesn’t wake up and get in the game, the brand will once again have a lovable brand with people falling away from it (in droves) because it isn’t relevant. How can you possibly expect to be relevant when you don’t communicate with your most passionate supporters?

Here’s what one Fan had to say:

That about sums it up.

Having a Facebook page, a Twitter account, and a YouTube channel doesn’t make you relevant. Just “being there” isn’t enough. You have to engage (though you may want to internalize some of the lessons Nestle learned from their social media disaster first).

I will say this: since I started writing this, Snapple has released a new Best Stuff Episode (#6) and addresses some of the Trop-A-Rocka™ chatter going on - sort of.

But, they are still completely silent on Facebook and Twitter (here’s proof), leaving potential brand ambassadors flapping in the breeze, fending for themselves, searching for answers.