Why do marketing & BD titles create confusion?

"Marketing and business development titles used to be more defined and more easily understood. 

The stages at which people progressed were more clear and each title really meant something to that firm and that individual."

​- Kate Harry Shipham

This confusion results from:
​

• The global pandemic. Covid-19 and the subsequent reactive market to hire more marketing and business development professionals. Right, but shouldn't we have settled in to this by now? Yes, and...
• The busyness. Because of the unparalleled boom market for this roles, it is creating more movement than we've ever seen. Additionally, new growth roles have been introduced making the "gaps" in teams feel more prominent and visible than we're used to.
• The gaps have far-reaching consequences. It means more work for less people. It means less trust and certainty by those still within their firms; they see others moving quickly and getting significant salary raises in doing so, and wonder if they should follow suit. It means a lack of time to manage people properly. This final point plays into the lack of standardization we see across titles.
• No standardization or clear guidelines on what each title means. Without this, the title issue will remain somewhat rudderless for years to come. This also results in one-time business decisions being made for a particular hire that has been a challenge, and then peer firms feel they have to follow suit. This word on the street quickly makes its way to marketers who are looking or listening.

Interesting problems. So, how has this played out?

• The entry titles (Assistant and Coordinator) often have similar minimum years of experience as a requirement. This muddies the waters on what experience, if any, juniors on the team should come with.
• The Specialist title has seemed to lack effect for some time. It is a "workhorse" role that firms don't always collaborate on the expectations and requirements. This in turn creates busy and overworked Specialists feeling as though they're doing the role of a Manager; no one is correcting this. The Specialist used to be an important interim step where technical, cultural and management training expectations were emphasized.
• The pre-Manager roles (Assistant, Coordinator and Specialist, including variations on these titles) generally are filled by a person who has little experience in the workplace, and with little guidance on the requirements at each level. Fast forward in time, and this creates the perception of entitlement. Firms, on the other hand, can do better at educating these relatively junior people on the significance of these roles. Stepping into Manager should be a senior step where the adequate training - technical and management - has already occurred.   
• Manager roles used to require around seven years of experience. Now, that seems to have lowered to around five years. (For those of us old enough to remember, that used to be a Specialist.) At the other end of the spectrum Managers can be a professional with 15-20 years of experience. Some even more so. The point being we now have professionals at this level who span 5 to 20+ years of experience. This level, in my view, is the biggest concern and would benefit from some layering.
• Ultimately, the current trend will result in marketing and business development professionals having between two to five less years of experience than what we were used to. Maybe that's ok, maybe it isn't. Importantly, if the industry is on the same page it will create less confusion.

​

Consider this table...

This is a comparison of the level of experience titles traditionally had; compare this to current day. 

---

Next up?

How do we alleviate this confusion? Can we standardize?

​Watch this space... and here it is.