Blog Faroohz

Being in "professional mode" today, which, as many job seekers can attest, often means navigating the labyrinthine world of online job descriptions. And in my recent deep dive into the marketing job market, a rather peculiar trend has caught my eye – the almost comical misuse and mixing of marketing job titles.

Speaking of online experiences, I even dipped my toes into LinkedIn Premium (as a regular user, not a business entity). Their AI-powered chatpod is... well, that's a topic for another day – a piece perhaps on how long-standing technologies are suddenly being rebranded as "AI" for that sweet, sweet marketing buzz.

But back to the real issue: job posts. As I explore opportunities globally (my local legacy plans are currently on pause, as genuine change seems elusive here), I'm consistently struck by the disconnect between job titles and actual responsibilities.

You can stumble upon an "Executive" Marketing position where the outlined duties are squarely within the realm of a Marketing Manager. Let's be clear: a manager might contribute to strategy development with directors, but an executive typically takes that established strategy and executes it. The skill sets, while overlapping, have distinct focuses. Yes, a capable manager can execute, and a director can certainly manage, but expecting an executive to routinely develop overarching strategies? That's where the lines blur, often to the detriment of both the individual and the team.

It even makes you wonder about the role of a "Marketing Officer." Are they also expected to develop and implement strategies? The inconsistency is baffling, especially when resources like Google and countless blog posts from experienced marketeers are readily available to clarify these roles.

While I hesitate to label it as ignorance, it's hard to shake the feeling that this title inflation and responsibility creep is a manipulative tactic. How many marketeers worldwide find themselves juggling the tasks of multiple roles under a single, often inflated, title? It screams "cost-cutting" or a misguided belief that one person can truly be "enough" to handle an entire department's workload.

And let's not even get started on seniority. If you're bestowing the title "Senior," where are the "Juniors"? Every officer should ideally have a manager, and even our executives need management and support structures. Hierarchy, while potentially varying slightly by industry, generally follows a similar structure, especially within marketing. Whether you report to sales, revenue, or directly to upper management, corporate frameworks usually exist for a reason.

My suspicion is that some companies (and I'm being generous by not saying "most") are playing fast and loose with these structures. Is it for control? Manipulation? Or simply to boast about their "lean" teams, often achieved by hiring a metaphorical octopus instead of building a well-functioning department? I speak from experience here – I've seen the octopus model in action.

I'm at least relieved that the bizarre "Designer & Marketing" hybrid trend seems to be fading in my part of the world. For a while, the demand for marketeers with strong design skills (a trend I might have inadvertently contributed to in my earlier career here) led to a chaotic situation. Designers were suddenly expected to be strategic marketeers (often undervaluing the actual marketeers), and marketeers leaned so heavily on AI design tools that brand identities became homogenized and, frankly, amateurish. The local campaign landscape started to resemble the artistic endeavours of a toddler.

But a new, equally concerning trend is emerging: the expectation for everyone to do everyone else's job, often masked by a "Senior" title in a department lacking actual seniority or a proper team structure.

Marketing is a potent force – capable of inspiring or manipulating. It seems some have grasped the power but not the potential damage they're inflicting on the professional integrity of the industry. Rules and hierarchies exist for a reason. While a competitive work culture is one thing, creating a system where individuals are set up to fail by being asked to perform roles they aren't equipped for (like expecting an executive to develop strategic plans) is quite another.

What are your thoughts on this? Have you encountered similar title inflation and responsibility creep in your job searches or current roles? Let's discuss in the comments below.

 

So, you could say my CV looks like a hopscotch board. I've navigated more job interviews than most people see in a lifetime, leaping across industries while staying firmly rooted in the marketing field. The result? A rather unique and, dare I say, valuable collection of experiences and a surprisingly broad understanding of various sectors.

I like to think of myself as a corporate grasshopper. You know how companies sometimes use animal archetypes? I'm somewhere between a chameleon (adapting quickly) and an octopus (reaching into different areas) – maybe a post for another day. But fundamentally, I'm a hopper.

Inevitably, the "short tenure" question pops up in interviews: "Your CV shows you haven't stayed at a company longer than two years." My answer? "That's often been more than enough." Here's the thing: sometimes, the corporate environment turns… less than ideal. When you have weak leadership, certain less-than-savoury characters (more hyena than lion, if you catch my drift) tend to emerge. And when things get abusive, I'm out.

I know, I know. The corporate mantra is "stay five years for commitment." But I've been on enough horrible interviews to know better. My responses range from a direct "My commitment is to my work, as my CV demonstrates" to a conditional "I'll stay for five years if there's a compelling reason to." Some might label me a "fox," but that feels more sales oriented.

For me, that "compelling reason" isn't about tolerating a toxic environment. It's about the actual work. While many employers are eager to hire me based on my skills, some in unhealthy workplaces try to twist my career-driven hopping into a lack of commitment to them. It's a handy red flag to spot before you even walk in the door.

So, if you're judging the corporate grasshopper, remember this: we're risk-takers. We've literally jumped ship to find something better. And as a corporate marketer, "be better" is essentially my job description. Kangaroos hop too, and they're powerful animals – they box! Not every hopper is just a little grasshopper.

Ultimately, companies need to understand that "experience" varies wildly. If you're seeking a "committed" employee, create a safe and supportive environment where they want to stay through thick and thin. We're not corporate penguins mating for life; we're humans forming partnerships.