Shel Holtz is blogging lately about his new book, Tactical Transparency, due out in November.

Along the way, he discusses a marketer who blathers to the effect that it's not "transparent" to sell products one is not "passionate" about.

Passionate. Marketers throw this term around a lot. What, when we're talking about fiber-optic networks or re-insurance or even all-natural fruit juice, does "passionate" really mean?

I remember when I was trying to get an employee communication consultancy off the ground, hawking $30,000 communication audits door to door. The agency's principal always told our prospects that the difference between us and our competitors, aside from the fact that we charged $70,000 less, was that we were truly "passionate" about employee communication, implying that the others were simply out to make a buck.

I hope I didn't actually use the P word myself, but I know I nodded in agreement when the principal told how passionate we were about employee communication. And had a client asked me why I was so hot and moist about employee communication, I would have been prepared to answer in 15 seconds, 30 seconds, two minutes or five minutes.

What would be much more true is that I'm "interested" in employee communication, and appreciate its potential to make organizations better places to work and easier operations to manage. I have also fitted my interest in employee communication into my political and personal philosophies (and vice versa). To me, employee communication is an agreeable field of study.

But to say I'm "passionate" about employee communication? I can't do it with a straight face, and I guess I don't quite trust anyone who can.

Marketers see it this way, business consultants show CEOs this kind of stuff and HR and training goons think it amounts to this.

Can anybody explain why internal communication is so badly misunderstood?

Companies on social media kicks usually come off like old men in pony tails: Trying too hard.

Over the summer:

Dial soap launched a "Campaign for Clean Hands," where contestants are supposed to send videos showing "their most creative take on hand washing," according to Brandweek.

Unilever created a cartoon named "Spraychel" to represent "I Can't Believe It's Not Butter!" In a series of "webisodes," Spraychel, is running for president.

And Procter & Gamble is asking consumers to come up with slogans for Crest Whitening Expressions' fourth flavor, "Wintergreen Ice," and perform their ideas on YouTube.

Now what kind of perverted, warped, desperate shut-in would put nose to grindstone to write and perform slogans for toothpaste ads or come up with "creative take" on hand-washing, or watch lame videos written by some margarine marketing manager?

I must say, four years on, I'm starting to lose whatever slim faith I had in the notion that big companies would generate expressive, truly interesting blogs and other social media content. Yes, there are exceptions to the rule, but they generally prove the rule. (You were going to mention GM's FastLane blog and Unilever's viral "Dove" video right? Gee, how did I know?)

I've still got my eyes peeled for good stuff. But the bad and the ugly keep getting in the way.

DISCLOSURE: I stumbled upon these ridiculous examples of social media marketing while working for a consumer products client not named here.