In a few years aspiring marketers in college will likely look back on Starbucks’ ill-fated “Race Together” marketing program as a prime example of what not to do when trying to show how culturally significant a business can be.

Think of disasters like “New Coke” or the ill-fated Edsel. Or how about when the geniuses at Disney who created “Old Yeller” dog food (named after a dog that was shot in the movie). They all failed miserably.

However, Starbucks may now be the new leader in marketing disasters.

Starbucks program may even be worse than when SunChips heralded on Earth Day compostable bag that would fade away over time and be environmentally cool. Unfortunately, Frito Lay-despite spending millions of dollars on developing the packaging— failed to realize that its bag was so loud its “green” customers were actually turned off by it.

Frito Lay sadly learned that when it came to the munchies its core customers were more concerned about bag sound levels than the environment.

Why was Starbucks forced to pull the plug on its major effort in less than a week? Maybe there was too little research ahead of time to gauge the public’s possible reaction. Maybe it was too ambitious. Maybe because the effort was perceived as being utterly pretentious.

Maybe a white billionaire talking about a problem with whites having a concentration of wealth rang a bit hollow.

Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz seemed to believe that his coffee shops were so cutting edge that they singlehandedly could become the focal point for dialogue on the race problems in the U.S.

Starbucks took out major inserts in USA Today with quizzes about race: “My parents had ____ friends of a different race.” “In my Facebook stream _____% are of a different race.” Somewhat ironically, even though Starbucks stores are not considered bastions of diversity, the quiz notes “At work, we have managers of ____ different races.”

It also highlighted that “the nation’s wealth is concentrated in the hands of 88.4% of whites, 4 % Latinos and 2.7% of blacks. It should be noted, according to Forbes Schultz is worth $2.6 billion.

It almost seemed as if Schultz was trying to alienate his own customers and make them feel uncomfortable. Did he really think riots would stop and people would come together for a $7. mocha, frappuccino, skim milk, whipped cream? Or was he trying to say his company is so culturally sensitive that it could change the culture through marketing?

Almost immediately after the announcement that customers could talk to Starbucks baristas about race issues the program began unraveling. For one thing, many employees were far too busy to stop and talk about anything other than coffee orders.

In addition, most employees had no real training about race relations. Or anything else other than making coffee-the job they were hired to perform.

“Many commentators in the media and members of the public mocked the program via Twitter and Facebook, not always politely wondering whether this was the best way to debate a sensitive issue — and questioning whether this would slow service inside Starbucks’ restaurants,” noted Fortune (link).

Reporters visited Starbucks and were almost embarrassed to ask about the program. Some reporters noted that it was somewhat ironic that Starbucks would be the arbiter of race relations in the country when it has virtually no stores in urban areas, including Ferguson, MO, and Selma, AL.

“The race crusade was largely panned by employees after it was launched Monday,” noted a story in the New York Daily News. “Some baristas were reluctant to use their stickers during busy shifts, or were just uncomfortable diving into their personal opinions.”

Starbucks says it will continue with other aspects of the “Race Together” program, but its main focus has vaporized. It is likely much of its real focus will be trying to save face.

It certainly was not what Schultz was anticipating.