I know I'm not winning any brownie points here, but I think it's important to be realistic in your moral assessments.
> it's a much better solution than paying some company to call you a good person.
If you can afford to and understand the terrible conditions of battery chicken, but wish to still eat meat, then one choice is morally better. It's unrealistic to think otherwise. Signaling intention with your purchase decisions is real. Not eating meat is of course the better solution, but is again an unrealistic expectation to have for many people.
You seem unable to tolerate incremental improvement. Why is that?