Titles and motion
Type that behaves identically at every sentence length, and annotations that leave nobody with a question mark.
The short version
Is this for you? For titles that break at long sentences and diagrams that raise a new question instead of answering one. Not if your videos carry no on-screen text worth the name; this is for channels where titles and annotations do real teaching, not for the occasional lower third.
What leaves your plate. Titles built in their own project so they arrive finished rather than fought with on the timeline, annotations checked against the question a learner would actually have, and room left for somebody else's work beside them.
What starts working. Type that reads the same in the fortieth video as in the first, and a lesson somebody can follow the whole way through without pausing to look anything up.
The smallest way in. A free audit: three fields, and a written reading back, usually within about three working days. It commits you to nothing.
What to read next. The five levels to see where this fits, or the casework to see it done.
What a title is for, and who it is for
Annotations exist so no student is left with a question mark
The techniques and terms a viewer would actually stumble on get written on the screen, and the ones they would not are left alone, because a label answering a question nobody had is just one more thing competing with what they should be watching. It is there because a lesson opens small gaps, and a viewer who falls into one stops learning and starts scrolling. The test is easy enough to run. Watch it as somebody who does not already know, and find the moment where they would reach for a search bar.
Titles are built in their own project and arrive finished
Type lives in a reusable After Effects project per partner and lands on the timeline as a rendered clip. It sounds indirect. It is what makes a caption behave on its fortieth outing exactly as it did on its first, and it means the person cutting tonight's video is not also quietly redesigning the brand's typography while they do it.
Whether the quantity goes on the card is the brand's decision
One channel's ingredient cards name the thing and leave the amount off, because a two-second shot cannot carry both and stay readable. Where two items go into the pan together they are stacked onto one card and given the time of both. The same brand's advertising version puts the amount back, since that viewer is deciding whether to cook rather than watching somebody cook. Get it wrong in either direction and the video is unreadable or useless, and both of those look perfectly fine in the edit.
Space is left for somebody else's work
On one partnership the closing animation is ours and everything before it is deliberately left clear, because the brand's own team animates those passages. A title system that fills every gap available to it is a title system somebody downstream has to undo, usually at the point where they are least able to afford the time.
The rules type follows once a brand has them
One face, one weight, one size band
Each partner's type is written down: the family, the point-size band per format, the colours as hex values. One brand rules out serif faces entirely. None of these are preferences of ours. They belong to the brand and are recorded so the fortieth video has not drifted somewhere the first one would not recognise.
Order and alignment carry meaning
An ingredient list follows the order the presenter says the items in, never the order the recipe was written in, so the words and the voice agree. Long titles align to whatever already occupies that edge of the frame, usually a logo, so the screen reads as laid out instead of assembled.
Colour comes from the content
On one channel the title colour is taken from the dish: red where tomatoes lead, green where the greens do. It is a small thing and it costs a minute per video. It is also why those titles look as though they belong to the food, instead of to a template with the brand's palette poured into it.
An annotation earns its place by removing a question.
One that raises a new question has cost the lesson more than it gave it.
What changes for you
Titles that read the same in the fortieth video as in the first, and a lesson somebody can follow all the way through without pausing to look something up.
Related: Subtitles and captions · Colour grading · Long-form editing · Multi-camera editing
Send the channel and we will read the edits themselves: pacing, cuts, consistency across recent videos. The audit names what post-production would change first, in writing, before anything is committed.
Request your free audit.
Three fields, and a written reading back: a fit snapshot, two or three prioritised opportunities, and a recommended next step.
A person reads the channel and writes the audit by hand: a considered read typically takes three working days. That is the usual shape, not a promised turnaround. We use these details only to reply to you: no lists, no lurking.
What you will get
A fit snapshot: where your channel stands, and whether we are a match.
Two to three opportunities: specific, prioritised, yours to keep.
A recommended next step, even if that step is not us.
The audit is free and commits you to nothing: nobody follows up with a call you did not ask for.
The casework shows all of this done.
The case studies are the same work with the numbers, the sources and the dates attached.
See the casework →