Some people make up their own stupid job titles. Others may have one thrust upon them. Count me among the latter group.

In 2000, I was hired as a copywriter for a small media company. A few days after I started, the director of Internet services suggested I adopt the title “Information Architect.” “It sounds cooler,” he said.

Stupidly, I assented. And it haunted me for my entire tenure at the company. Every time I met a new client, I had to explain exactly what it was I did. Was I a programmer? A database expert?

After explaining I was a copywriter, clients would usually smile politely, but I knew what they were thinking: “Shouldn’t a copywriter know better?” They weren’t wrong, either. But even the best of us are susceptible to stupid titles. Take the example of Scott Woolgar.

Woolgar is co-owner of the tastefully named Well Done Marketing, an advertising and marketing firm based in Fountain Square. According to his business card, he’s a “Partner” — simple and direct. But in a prior position, he was known as the Senior Director of Functional User Design and Interface. Or, as he came to be known around the office, “the phooey guy.”

“Like most overblown titles, this one didn’t come with a pay raise,” Woolgar said. “So it seemed like a lot of words and a lot of work. Pretty soon, people were calling me the Director of FUI, then just the phooey guy.”

Marketing and technology companies — the kind with big ambitions and egos to match — are especially prone to inane, you-gotta-be-kidding-me titles. Woolgar, who has had his fair share of experience in both fields, says, “I once had a knock-down fight over the job title ‘technical communicator.’.”

Lack of clarity regarding what an employee actually does isn’t the only byproduct of a stupid title. It may also telegraph a deeper problem within the company.

“I’m not sure there isn’t a barometer effect at play, where you can tell how a company will succeed based on its approach to naming,” he said. “The more vague and lofty or trendy, the more likely to miss the boat in other, more important categories.”

Who do we have to thank for the silly title trend? Woolgar points to the cocky dot-com start-ups of the late ’90s. “For years, dot-com executives called themselves chief innovation officers, chief knowledge officers. At the same time, they were struggling to figure out how to make money — and most of them failed.

“(A good title has) clarity, class and cleverness — in that order,” Woolgar continued. “My business cards say I’m a partner in the firm, but I’m known either as ‘the business guy’ or ‘the other one.’ I suppose I should think about making it official with the next round of business cards.”