Premise

Titles might seem like obvious things that every work needs. Heck, even this article has one. And because of this fact, it sometimes might also seem like they’re not a very big deal. E.g., why not just call your piece “Research Paper,” or let AI come up with a snazzier version?

Fair questions. And the answers for why you shouldn’t do those above things need a bit of context and explanation, so let’s explore some of them via some examples below.

Examples

What Does a Title Really Do?

Titles are everywhere. We see them for T.V. series, movies, and books. Even the subject line of an email can be thought of as one. And so at its core, a title is really identifying some key aspect of what a production, piece, etc. is about.

However, as we all intuitively know, titles have different genre conventions. I.e., how you might approach creating a title for a T.V. series is different then what you might want to consider for a technical document. So how do you decide what criteria go into making a “good” title within each respective genre?

A Bit of Historical Context

Part of the challenge here is that there isn’t one set rule—or even one set set of rules. Take T.V. shows, for example. If you go back to the mid-20th century, market research by big corporations showed that shorter titles tended to be remembered by coworkers chatting around watercoolers, on smoke breaks, etc. So the nature of generating titles for this new form of mass entertainment media included this prime consideration for how best to promote their products.

And while the reasons for choosing titles today obviously aren’t the same, some of these influences have trickled down. There are many reasons for why a one word book title like “Justice” might stand out to some audiences, but in other cases, like creating a presentation, we might want a more comprehensive title. E.g., “The Rhetoric of Justice in Campus Policy-making.”

But if you scroll through T.V. shows on any app, you’ll find that there’s a wide diversity of titles, although they still tend to be shorter because viewers who are essentially “shopping” for their next show don’t want to have to think too hard while flipping through a bunch of images with words attached. Typically, they want something clear, crisp, and catchy (and in some cases like this, alliterative too!).

So What Makes a “Good” Title Then?

Simply put: context and audience awareness are the key considerations here. What’s “appropriate” and effective in one situation might be an entirely different set of elements in another. And so your best bet is to try to emulate genre conventions within which you can try to stand out.

E.g., if you’re writing a technical manual (and all the samples you find are straight-forward, no fluff identifications of the topics) then you probably want to try to match something like that. However, if you craft a presentation (and you notice that similar presentations have more elaborative titles) then go with that format.

When in doubt, you can always return to the core premise that a title should engage your target audience(s) interest, whether they be a specific group(s) or the general population.

Okay, How the Heck do I Actually Make Them Then?

You can simply get this answer by looking at other samples similar to your own work, and thinking about what seem to be some common considerations. You don’t have to include all of these identifying elements below, but you certainly want to reference some (usually 2-4 of these are enough) (note these are generally ordered by most common usage):

• subject(s)
• issue(s)
• audience(s)
• solutions(s)

Some specific examples might help. So here are some academic paper titles with a summary of the corresponding paper’s content for reference. Think about which of the bullet-pointed considerations above manifest here in each example:

• Caffein-nation: The Global Effects of America’s Coffee Addiction
  • Argument about how America’s obsession with mass-market coffee is leading to social, economic, and environmental problems worldwide—and what can be done to help mitigate these negative impacts.
• From Toilet to Tap to Help Save Our World
  • Argument about cities recycling sewage into drinkable water as a way to help reduce environmental waste—and why more should consider implementing this technology.
• Carry on Campus to Keep Colleges Safe?
  • Argument exploring whether or not to allow students to open carry weapons on college campuses.
• Books into Bricks? A Novel Concept for Recycling
  • Argument analyzing how municipalities in partnership with waste management should consider recycling old books into building bricks for community infrastructure projects.

Further Considerations

• Always look for samples. Obviously, this is heavily dependent on the type of work. As mentioned above, what makes a “good” title for a technical manual is an entirely different set of considerations compared to a title for a T.V. series.
• Main title: subtitle. This is an interesting one because you see main titles and subtitles across forms of communication. To keep it brief: a main title usually is the first part of a title before a colon (:) that identifies the general subject, question, issue, etc.; while a subtitle offers a more elaborative context on that subject, question, issue, etc. It’s a great technique to use when you feel like you want to be a bit more detailed with your titles to pique your audience’s interest.
  • Say, for example, that you’re writing an academic essay about how bug sprays are worse for the environment than the average American realizes. This sounds interesting because you clearly have a purpose and target audience. And so you might realize that just a main title like “A Spray a Day Keeps Nature at Bay” has an opportunity to reference a bit more of your two main goals here: 1) to prove a point, 2) to prove this point with a specific audience in mind.
  • And so a good title: subtitle combo might look something like: “National Pastime: A Spray a Day Keeps Nature at Bay.”
  • This is a great title because we have the subject: sprays, issue: environmental harm, and audience: national issue. We don’t get the fourth point (solution). But that’s okay. Readers are hopefully curious enough with 3/4 of these identifications to want to read more to hear about the final one.
• Effective titles don’t always give everything away. That is to say, that a “good” title (and sometimes the “best” ones) often allude to the subject rather than fully identify the complete premise, purpose, and proofs of a work. Sometimes they can accomplish one or more of these points, but rarely all. In cases where they do (sometimes like more technical works), this is exactly why you want to try to identify these elements via samples within the form that you’re communicating.
• Why do you keep using quotation marks around words like “good” and “best”? Ah, I’m glad I pretended like you asked this question! The idea here is that “good” and “best” are relative terms. I.e., we’re never going to all agree on what makes the greatest title, so we can only try our best to identify and explain, in general, why some titles within certain forms might be more effective at engaging specific or broad audiences over others!
• Wait, why not just let AI do this again? Because your brain (like all your other organs) benefits from exercise. And this is not just hyperbole. Taking the time to consider, process, and produce titles is actually an impressive cognitive function—literally helping to develop, maintain, and (dare we even say) strengthen your mental capabilities. This effort, in turn, obviously can then be put to use in other ways where critical thinking is useful (like wrecking n00bs in Fortnite, which is obviously all we really want).