Comments on: Titles Do Make A Difference

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Wed, 06 Apr 2011 01:29:30 +0000

Great ideas and tips – thanks heaps!

I found that the more I tried, the more creative and relevent my title’s became. Understanding what the overall message is about, helped me to know what type of title I wanted too.
I also found it helpful to do a search on news sites to read stories so that I could get an idea of how to relate the title to local community issues (like the Assessment Seattle examples above).

By: Lisa Hinchliffe

Lisa Hinchliffe — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 14:42:47 +0000

First – The disclaimer that I am speaking as myself only here and not ACRL Vice-President. Second – I’ve said this for many years, in conference planning meetings and on my ACRL conference evaluation forms. Third – To get to the point … what I really wish is that we’d cut the length of the time people have to present so we could have more people giving presentations. I’m not advocating for an entire conference in pecha kucha form but if anything the CyberZed Shed has taught is is that short presentations can still be very meaningful. Let’s up the number of papers/session and also let people propose a “panel” in the more traditional academic conference meaning – a set of individual papers grouped around a theme. A plus side I see is that with less time, most presenters should dispense with the “where is my institution and what is its history, demographics, etc.” – with rare exception that is completely irrelevant.

By: StevenB

StevenB — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 12:43:50 +0000

I admire your persistence Marsha, and hope you will keep trying. You’ve made a good suggestion though I would not anticipate ACRL wanting to add to the burden of being a conference proposal reviewer by then asking those folks to give feedback in some sort of forum. It would also require ACRL to give individual responses rather than that mass rejection email many of us are all too familiar with. I know what you mean about the point rating system. I’ve seen that with grant proposals (although you have to specifically request to see your point total and reviewer comments). But perhaps there is some way to have reviewers complete a single sheet on which general comments could be offered. Perhaps ACRL will consider this in the future – or you could make the suggestion to them. If you’ve been consistently rejected for paper submissions, how about trying to put together a panel session or think about doing a poster session (I did one in 2009 and enjoyed the experience). Just getting accepted for something is a good way to break the ice, and may help you with future proposals. Keep trying and good luck for 2011.

By: Marsha Miller

Marsha Miller — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 04:58:43 +0000

thanks for the posting. i have submitted to ACRL several times and never gotten in. it is VERY frustrating. i have indeed spent quality time thinking about the title as well as everything else. what is frustrating is to go to all that work and then get the standard letter ‘we get so many submissions’ [but we didn't choose yours]. i wish we could get real feedback; e.g. was there just general disinterest, was mine just like 20 others? what? they should be able to give us an opportunity to get a little bit more feedback even if it’s a point rating system.

By: Shane

Shane — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 16:17:07 +0000

By the same token though, a catchy title can put someone off a presentation even if it is genuinely clever. You can be catchy, but make sure there’s something informative in the title too. I would hope that the “If fish markets can do it then so can we” title had a subtitle of some sort so that I could actually have an idea of if I even want to spend the time to track down the description, let alone attend, especially for those who don’t know the fish market relationship you’re trying to make.

By: Mollie

Mollie — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:10:03 +0000

I agree that a boring title can be the kiss of death to attendance and probably to acceptance, but a title that is too “cute” can be incredibly off-putting. As one who has both successfully and unsuccessfully proposed ACRL presentations, I can’t fully endorse the suggestion to use the conference metaphors/location in the title. Perhaps it’s because I’m not crazy about cheesesteak, but trying to work in the local cuisine strikes me as stretching, although I think I’d feel the same way about a food I loved. On the other hand, brainstorming really bad titles with your co-presenters based on the conference metaphors can help you discover the middle ground between boring and too cute. Really–and it takes some of the tension out of the proposal process.

For the record, Steven didn’t refer to any of my presentation titles in his examples.

By: Ivan Chew

Ivan Chew — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 05:51:40 +0000

Found your post by way of David Silver’s blog. I share your views. A colleague once told me he decided to attend my presentation because he was intrigued by the title. And having just returned from a research workshop, where I listened to some presentations, I think an interesting title (different from gimmicky) adds to the listener’s understanding. Like how a piece of poem makes more sense when you review the title afterwards. At least that’s how I view it. And you’re right to say the presenter has to “deliver the goods”. The possible downside of a catchy title, without accompanying substance, is to raise the reader’s expectations and then not meet it.