3 thoughts on “This is what I mean by ‘more senior strategic web roles’”

  1. Oddly I read the job ad quite differently – as a way that the US is catching up with the UK.

    Apparently (according to Radio 5’s Pods program) the US government has had no web editors until now. Not one. That’s because job titles and descriptions have to be set at a federal (national) level – an agency can’t just write a new job description and advertise it. No one at federal level had ever got around to it and so, technically, the US government had no such roles. This announcement seems to me to be a long overdue correction and the creation of such a job role.

    But I didn’t see it as strategic, and it seems to me to be something between a hands-on ‘web editor’ and the Head of e-Comms role you used to do. I wouldn’t be fooled by ‘Director’ – these days, job title inflation is such that “Director of Hospitality” can be the cafeteria till operator! But to give it due credit, this job announcement is a key step forward in professionalising the US digital media workers.

    (Agencies aren’t the same as our departments, BTW, but are analogous to – well, our agencies like the Environment Agency, Met Office, Ofcom, etc. US Federal agencies range from the Office of Government Ethics through the Federal Communications Commission and the infamous FEMA, right up to the FBI, CIA and NASA.)

  2. Director is not so high on the rung in Australian government either – it’s a senior middle-management band.

    When we start seeing web roles with ‘Secretary’ in them somewhere, it will indicate a senior position (at least here).

Leave a comment