I've always kinda thought titles at ad/marketing/design agencies were dumb. And I was reminded of that today.
I got a linked in request. Yes it is truly the most pointless site in the world, but I still felt compelled to view this persons profile and accept their request.
After I accepted it showed me other people I MAY KNOW.
That's when as I scrolled through it seemed like every 3rd person was a Creative Director.
I know that part of it is many potential people it might serve up that I know are old and been in the industry a long time like myself. But it really does seem that the title of CD means close to nothing these days. Along with other countless title that include the word director or the letters VP.
I hear the argument that it's the clients who want to hear important titles of the people who are on their business. But is that true? Because I can recall a meeting I was in at Coca-Cola where the Global Executive Creative Director was there, and the client asked them what that even meant.
I think titles hold people from their fullest potential. It keeps people to a chain of command rather than speaking up, taking chances, taking charge when they should.
And then add on top of this that titles are not the same across the board from agency to agency. You might be a SR. AD one place and and CD someplace else, but do the exact same thing.
And made up title are even worse. They never are anything other than cheesy. So if you are a chief ideas officer, you have an idiotic title.
Titles are dumb. I would say just go to titles that explain what you do:
Creative art or copy