The New Job Titles: Creative Technologist And AI Producer
The new job titles arrived before the job descriptions. Creative technologist, AI producer, AI creative director, prompt lead: each of them is being advertised in the Indian market with wildly different expectations attached.
That is normal for a young role and it has a cost. A person hired into an undefined job is judged against an imagined one, and both sides discover the mismatch in month four.
What The New Job Titles Actually Cover
Three distinct functions that are being bundled together and should not be. The first is craft: making things with these tools to a standard the agency can ship. The second is enablement: teaching everyone else, maintaining prompts and references, and keeping quality consistent. The third is governance: deciding what may be used, on which account, and what gets disclosed.
The first is a maker, the second is a trainer, and the third is closer to operations or legal. Asking one person to be all three produces someone who is behind on all three.
The Hiring Mistake
Recruiting for tool familiarity. Tools change every quarter and familiarity is the least durable part of the skill set. What lasts is judgement about the work, which means the strongest candidates are usually people who were already good at making advertising.
Hiring for tool knowledge buys a skill with a half-life of six months. Hiring for judgement buys the part that transfers.
Where These Roles Should Sit
Inside the creative department, not beside it. A technologist parked in a separate innovation team ends up demonstrating rather than delivering, and their knowledge never reaches the people making the work.
The agencies getting value from these hires gave them live briefs and an obligation to teach, and wrote down which of the three functions the person actually owns. That single page of definition is what separates a useful role from an expensive experiment.
Related: what happens to agency training programmes.
More in The AI Shift.