Why Your ATS could be Filtering Out the Producers You Actually Need
I'm currently neck-deep in producer CVs. Reviewing every single one, every week for producers, seeing the same patterns repeatedly.
All the time I see fab producers with 15+ years at top agencies/prod cos/post houses/brands, who've handled multi-million pound integrated campaigns and kept teams from murdering each other under impossible deadlines and they present themselves on paper like mid-weight project managers. They tell me they don’t understand why they aren’t getting interviews, they used to be back to back and and they don’t know where to start.
But that isn’t just the producer’s problem its a massive problem for hirers too - ATS systems and AI filters are rejecting fantastic producers before any human ever sees their experience, and that means companies are missing the unicorns.
88% of employers admit their ATS filters out qualified candidates who don't perfectly match the job description and while 94% of HR professionals say ATS systems have improved their hiring process, I’d argue they're not seeing a critical gap: the difference between what a system can filter for and what actually makes someone brilliant at producing.
The ATS is looking for keywords. Exact matches. Specific formatting. All of which is important, but what it can’t catch is Creative authority. Commercial judgment. Critical Communication. The ability to protect work under pressure. The craft guardianship that separates someone who delivers projects from someone who elevates.
I have been doing an ongoing surveys amongst advertising producers (ok I only have a few thousand followers so its not exactly a massive sample size) 90% admit they don’t know what an ATS is. No wonder their CVs don’t get through. But that’s a disaster for hirers - all those brilliant producers you’re not seeing because no one has shown them how to tailor a cv for 2026 for the production industry. I'm on a bit of a mission to make sure brilliant producers stop defaulting to their CV approach from 2016. Not corporate generic ai fluff anyone can find online, that is almost worse - but something created by a producer for producers
I've Been On Both Sides
I spent years at big network agencies - Saatchi & Saatchi among them - watching HR departments struggle with production hiring. They were too slow. They didn't share the right types of candidates. And fundamentally, they didn't understand what made a good producer good. So I did it myself. I built my own network, vetted my own candidates, made my own hiring decisions. That's when I also learned the value of using a trusted headhunter who actually speaks production. Yes even I used to think “I can do this myself I have a good network, a headhunter is a waste of money”
Problem is most recruiters don't really understand production.
Anyone reading this - candidate or hirer can surely relate to this; At least once a month talent managers and recruiters reach out to me to offer me production jobs., or digital marketing roles, or even an editing job once! People who are supposed to be experts in hiring thought I - a recruiter - would be a good fit. WOW. I know of friends - an In house Production Lead at a top brand, be asked if they’d be interested in a role 5 days a week office bound for £50K, the MD of a top 10 producton company be asked if they’d be interested in running the inhouse arm of a network agency. Sound the claxon!
The Industry Context Makes This Worse
We know there are countless redundancies and hiring freezes. . At the same time, nearly half of marketing and creative leaders say finding skilled professionals is more challenging than it was a year ago. So there’s this perfect storm: brilliant producers who haven't had to job hunt in a decade suddenly on the market, talent teams who don't understand production trying to filter them, and ATS systems eliminating qualified candidates based on criteria which most of the candidates don’t even realise is a thing!
A Recent Example
Last week I helped a producer I genuinely believe in land a role at a top agency.
She'd applied before. Been ignored.
But I know this job is right for her - I could see it immediately. She has exactly what they need: the creative sensitivity, the commercial nous, the ability to translate impossible creative ambition into achievable solutions.
I glowed up her CV (all part of the service when working with me on an open role). I reframed her experience to show decision-making authority rather than just delivery. Made her creative guardianship visible instead of implied. Positioned her 15+ years of experience as impact, not tenure.
She sent that in - and guess what? They brought her in for interview.
The ATS Problem - applicant tracking systems do not autonomously reject candidates; they organise, sort, and filter applications based on criteria defined and managed by people have never produced, or worked directly with producers. So I also say to Producers “fix your CV for the bots, you are also fixing it for human viewing too.”
What This Means For Agencies and Brands
If you're hiring producers and relying entirely on your internal talent team to surface the best options, you're probably missing people who could actually do the job brilliantly..
The questions your talent team should be asking:
Does this person understand crew casting and director chemistry?
Can they protect margin when scope expands, without panicking or compromising relationship?
Do they know when something's landing creatively?
Can they manage creative push and client pressure simultaneously?
Have they elevated creative outcomes, not just delivered them?
Instead, your ATS is asking:
Does this CV contain the exact job title we specified?
Are there enough keyword matches?
Is the format parseable? (another word 80% of producers in my survey don’t understand)
This becomes particularly acute for brands building in-house production capabilities. Your talent teams struggle even more because they're not just unfamiliar with production - they're unfamiliar with agency production specifically.
They write job descriptions that repel top legacy producers. They default to "ask a mate" instead of rigorous recruitment.
The top producers who would be perfect for these roles? They're not applying. The job descriptions are so badly written they can't even tell if the role is right for them.
This Is Fixable
The solution isn't to get rid of ATS systems. Of course not ! I’ve built one, its great for staying track of stuff.
But the solution is to have someone at the front of the hiring the process who:
Understands what actually makes a senior producer vs a mid weight and vice versa
Can read between the lines of how producers present themselves
Knows the difference between delivery and decision-making authority
Speaks both production language and client language
Can spot creative guardianship even when it's not explicitly stated
That's where I come in. I can help the candidate to fix their CV of course but I have also, when time is tight just sent the terrible cv and told the company to ignor and listen to why I think they are right instead - that person still gets the job - thats the translation I can do - thats my value.
For Hiring Teams Reading This
If you're struggling to find the right production talent, or if you're seeing CVs that all look the same and none of them feel quite right,, Your filters might be eliminating exactly the people you need.
I spend every day bridging that gap - helping producers communicate their value properly, and helping clients spot genuine senior talent even when it's not immediately obvious.
If you're on either side of this equation and it's not working, let's talk.