I wrote back:

Dear Mr. Brunson,

I feel compelled to respond. I am quite offended that I have received a "canned" response to the email that I took the time to write out. I know that this message is a mass response to the many people who wrote in about this commercial, and it does nothing to help the problem.

I am well aware that your company would not use a "real" animal in your ad, because it is against the law. I will at least give you the benefit of that doubt. However, using that image at all is still distasteful. It is not humorous. How funny would it have been if you shown an emaciated child in a crib? Would that be funny? Would it be funny to show a crying baby in a diaper full of excrement because "Jimmy" was too busy with a sandwich? I would hope that your humanity would kick in and stop you from using such tasteless images. Showing a dead bird is no different. I do not have human children, but my pets are just as much a part of my family as any person would be, and animals rely on their families to care for them. Your scenarios are not "equally exaggerated" because one scene takes a living, breathing life and mocks and exploits it for marketing purposes. So what if the bird is stuffed - that doesn’t make it "ok."

I think it is disgusting that you, on behalf of your company, are trying to excuse your bad taste and justify it. There is no excuse. There is no justification. Your company made a bad call and it needs to be rectified. Sending out a boxed response in an attempt to "tame the masses" does nothing to ease my displeasure, nor does it excuse the fact that you exploited animal abuse to sell a product.

I hope that you choose to respond to me with the same respect that I have shown you, with a personal attempt to take back this show of bad taste.

I look forward to your response,
Naomi