A few weeks ago, I wrote a column comparing two campaigns. I was interested in celebrating the one I thought was good. But in so doing, I was also critical of the other. I received a lot of feedback from people telling me they agreed, but I was also criticised by some for my criticism.
It made me reflect on the ''code of ethics'' (mine, and in general) for the review and commentary of the creative work of others.
When it comes to the creative side of our business it is all about opinion, so having a point of view is the lifeblood of what we do. But with this comes subjectivity - anyone can have an opinion, qualified or not. I cannot tell you how many times as a child I would listen to my dad providing a narrative on the ad breaks, telling anyone within earshot he could do better himself.
What are the rules for sharing our opinions on the work of others?
We could keep them to ourselves. Or share them only when we wanted to praise. It would reduce some of the negative energy on the planet. But might it also create a slightly anodyne world, a touch too sweet or, worse still, censored?

It would also make it harder for me to fulfil the brief for this column: to write about something I feel fired up about. To me, that generally means irate rather than effusive. But maybe that says something about me.
I quickly came to think about the industry blogs that have sprung up. People send them press releases about all manner of things, including new campaigns. The editorial team posts about the campaign and invites readers to share their thoughts.
You would expect some to be more liked than others. There would be some gems and some turkeys, and the comments would reflect both. But you would be wrong. Generally, it is a poisonous diatribe of negative one-upmanship of who can most snidely review a peer's work - albeit one in a competitive agency. It truly is a sight to behold, one I cannot imagine exists in many other industries.
Most critics hide behind a veil of anonymity, slinging mud from the sidelines, confident their identity will never be revealed. I cannot think of much that is more cowardly. (I predict they will soon do the same about this piece; how thick-skinned you have to be to write an opinion piece.)
This brought to mind a recent campaign my agency was asked to develop about cyber-bullying for a pro bono client, the SchoolAid foundation. The objectives were to build greater awareness among schoolchildren of this behaviour, to show how to recognise it in oneself and create empathy with the recipient of cruel and hurtful comments.
How much similarity there is between the symptoms of cyber-bullying and the behaviour in these industry blogs. The key difference is that with the cyber-bullying brief, the target audience was eight to 10-year-olds, many unaware of the effect of their behaviour.
As adults, we should be well aware of the consequences of our behaviour. We know nothing draws a crowd in the playground quicker than the chanting of ''fight, fight, fight'' and the digital equivalent of this is the bloodsport taking place on these blogs.
A further casualty of the backbiting and bitching is the reduction of intelligent, considered and constructive opinion.
In this industry we have more than our fair share of smart, insightful people. But I fear most of them would be unlikely to add their reasoned point of view to a degenerative debate about a campaign. They have already removed themselves from the conversation in this format.
That is a real shame because a heated but intelligent debate could help our industry in a way personal and showboating derision never will. Critiquing the work of others is OK.
If you have something to say, go ahead - but have the conviction to put your name to it. A reasoned point attached to a credible source is the difference between being constructive and being a coward.
Anthony Freedman is the chief executive of Host.