So what evidence do you have that the economists are fixing the problems created by the sociologists in any meaningful sense?

I confess I don't understand this question. Could you please clarify?

A major issue when assisting people in the developing world is coordination problems... education... institutions...

But these "institutions" are not laws of nature, they aren't even tangible things - an "institution" is just a description of the way people co-ordinate with each other. So yes, people in developing countries often can't co-ordinate because they have bad institutions, but it would be equally true to say that they can't have good institutions because they don't co-ordinate.

A random African doesn't know necessarily that bednets are an option, or even have any good understanding of where to get them from.

Actually, I think that a "random African" likely knows a lot more about what would improve his standard of living than you or I, and my mind boggles at any other presumption. If he'd rather spend his money on beer than bednets, but you give him a bednet anyway, then I hope it makes you happy, because you're clearly not doing it for him.

I'm curious to here how marketing is at all likely to produce positive externalities.

Apart from the reasons you already mentioned, marketing creates a brand which reduces information costs. This is of course particularly important in a low information market. Spending money to promote your brand is a pre-commitment to provide satisfactory quality products.

Huh? All of these can result in total utility going down compared to what might happen if one picked a different market equilibrium. How are these not market failures?

Firstly, no-one can "pick" a market equilibrium. Secondly, order is defined in the process of its emergence. Thirdly, proof of a possibility and a demonstration of a real-world effect are not the same thing.

Microsoft have also suffered from anti-trust laws

Yes, they have and that's ok... The prevent the problem we've seen in the banking and auto industries of being too big to fail

So every time a business gains on account of departures from the free market, that's a travesty, but every time it loses, that's the way things are supposed to work. No wonder you think academics are the only ones who do any good. Besides, TBTF isn't an economic problem, this is a political problem. They had too many lobbyists to be allowed to fail, that's all.

I'm quite curious to here an explanation for how [bundling] isn't a market failure

How is it a market failure? It's possible for bundling to reduce consumer surplus, but that's just a straight transfer.