In response to yesterday’s GolinHarris news that they would be reorganizing the company, our first thought was how someone at the SVP level, for instance, would respond to these changes.
“We’re very sensitive to this,” Fred Cook, the firm’s president and CEO, told us. “We’ve been around for 56 years and people are used to a certain structure. And we have a lot of people working for 10 or 15 years and we’re trying to make sure everybody understands their new roles and titles.”
Internally, staffers might be getting used to it, but the titles and the four new groups that are part of the g4 model — strategists, creators, connectors, and catalysts — caused some discussion externally.
A Gawker post proposes titles like Apple and Banana as an alternative and calls the whole thing “bullshit.”
Widemeyer Communications’ Kristofer Eisenla, a VP with the firm, says in a blog post that titles don’t matter as much as the work. But they do mean something to other people (including his grandma), so that’s what he’ll be sticking with.
And PR Daily digs into some of the more outlandish social media titles out there like “chatter monkey.”
We’ve heard a few humdingers ourselves. Still, a lot of firms stick with the tried-and-true. Although we can’t help but notice through our Roll Call posts that there are a whole lot of VPs, SVPs, and directors out there in the industry, which also makes you question the real value of traditional titles.
So with all this in mind, we pose today’s PRNewser Poll question:
How creative can publicists be with staff titles?
The poll will be open until Tuesday at noon. And the comments section is open for additional thoughts. Vote today!