I’ve been tired of the arguments over “social media experts” for a long time. There’s also the recurring meme about people with unusual titles “ninja, guru” and that one bores me as well. If all you have to write about is semantics, dig a little deeper.
But here’s a nomenclature discussion that makes sense to me. The PR firm GolinHarris has tossed out their old title scheme and adopted a new one:
Strategists, who analyze a client’s business;
Creators, who develop new ideas and engage in brand storytelling;
Connectors, who reach target audiences through media and other channels;
Catalysts, who manage client relationships.
“Thanks, and a tip of the blog hat to Publicity Club of New England, where I found out about it.”
I’ve always been a big fan of clarity and saying what you mean. Those titles seem to me to say pretty clearly what those people do “with the possible exception of Catalyst—that one seems a little less descriptive and more like marketing speak”.
With the speed at which things are changing in the communications and marketing world, and the different ways we are pursuing those activities, it makes sense to rethink the way we talk about what we do. Two of my three most recent titles didn’t exist five years ago.
The big question, of course, is will this provide clarity and value to clients, or will it confuse people? Regardless, it’s a bold step and one that seems to me to involve more than just semantics.
What do you think of those titles? And do you think we need new ones, or should we let the old ones evolve?
image by suchitra