I'm weighing in on this discussion a bit late, but I feel compelled to add something that seems to be missing; a questioning of the defence that has been made for the Home for the Holidays promotion on the grounds that it is successful (though it appears that it is not as successful in terms of outcome for some of the cats as was first stated).

If one applies the "success justification" to an endeavour, then anything can be justified on the grounds that it is successful (for the promoter), including all the things that are widely abhorred, such as drug selling, child prostitution, pornography, etc., and lesser, but still unethical human conduct such as credit card fraud, marketing cigarettes to children, etc. All these are highly successful for the promoters or sellers.

When the defenceless are being exploited (as may or may not be the case here), then there is a stricter duty to uphold ethical standards. Ethical standards don't ever consider the success of a thing, just the ethics of a thing. Quantitative success can be a bonus but the aim should always be quality. I would want to look at other SPCA promotions to see if they consistently follow a pattern of quantitative success or qualitative ethics.