As someone who has spent most of his career trying to skirt the line between being edgy and crass, some might wonder who the hell I am and what I did with the real Mike Sperry. Early in my stint with Foote Cone and Belding, in fact, I was nearly fired for producing an ad while my Executive Creative Director was on vacation. He’d killed it before leaving but, when he returned and opened his mail, he was greeted with a tear sheet of the spread with a hand written note attached from Gil Amelio, then CEO of National Semiconductor. The note read, “Saw your ad. Can’t say it left a good taste in my mouth.” He wasn’t happy, but he had a darn funny way of expressing his anger, considering the execution.

Needless to say, my boss wasn’t very happy. And although I don’t recall the level of response the ad generated outside of Mr Amelio, I like to think that if he noticed it, perhaps the engineers to whom it was targeted may have noticed as well. I think, just maybe, that my ass was saved that day because the ad actually worked, in spite of my insubordination.

20 years, thousands of battle scars, and a world of maturity later, I kind of think I would still do the same thing. But I might fire myself if I was the boss. Point being, someone inside the agency has got to take responsibility for the work that goes out the door. In my world that should be creative directors. Choosing to abdicate this responsibility, and to justify doing so because of the pressure to create edgy work, means there’s no telling just how bad some taste may become.

Stuart Elliott and Tanzina Vega point this out in their article, “Trying to Be Hip and Edgy, Ads Become Offensive” in the New York Times. What’s difficult to fathom is that a highly talented and respected Creative Director seems to rationalize offensive advertising as the only creative recourse in the search for ways to “speak to millennials” or go viral. (By the way, if something goes viral, it’s more blind, stupid luck than anything else. It’s like coming up with the digital equivalent of the Pet Rock. I mean, c’mon.) Don’t get me wrong. I understand the pressure creative departments face to constantly break new ground, and that creatives will always push the boundaries of taste to do so. Fortunately, most have had the great benefit of a boss who has the good sense to draw a line where race, rape and suicide might be used to sell a product or service. (A far cry from a bike messenger with bugs in his teeth, I might add.) Not the case, however, in the Elliott/Vega article. Personally, I can’t imagine why anyone would actually present such ideas internally, let alone that they survive agency scrutiny and make it to the client. And what of the client that approves them? Equally if not more disturbing.

So I don’t buy Tor Myhren’s reasoning that vulgar, crass and objectionable creative ideas are the only ways to reach certain audiences or to increase the online pass-along value. That’s not being creative, and it’s certainly not reaching for the stars.