Content and Strategy in the Entry-Level Advertising Portfolio

There is no question that general advertising education has for some time been a topic of discussion by both industryl and academe.2 Recently, however, attention has been directed increasingly to creative programs at universities and their relevance to the profession (Kendrick, Slayden & Broyles, 1996a, 1996b; Morrison, 1994; Otnes, Spooner and Treise,1993; Otnes, Oviatt, and Triese, 1995; Robbs,1996; Walker, 1992a, 1992b). Such attention to the overall elements of a successful creative program differs from the bulk of earlier research that focused on techniques for successful teaching of creative in the classroom (Alvey, 1994; Avery, Johnson, Keding, Siltanen and Sweeney, 1991; Feasley, 1983; Keding, 1988; Marra, 1992; McAdams and Sweeney, 1987; Moriarty, 1983; Moriarty and Rohe, 1992; Pearce, 1989; Sweeney, 1988; Vance, 1982; Whitlow, 1986). While such research has consistently stressed the central role that the entry-level portfolio plays in the hiring process, relatively little discussion has been given over to the specifics of the portfolio's content: For example, what should be in it, and what should not? How many pieces and their consideration for presentation, and different expectations for art directors and copywriters. What is needed is to move from the general context in the existing literature to the specific - both qualifying and quantifying the range of advice given about putting a book together for an entry-level job as a creative in advertising. Unlike the "how-to" pieces sometimes found in the trade press, which talk directly and often inspirationally to the prospective hire (see, for example, Brandalise & Deschenes, 1996; Paetro, 1990), our audience is the college professor currently teaching, or planning to teach, creative and/or portfolio classes. With the exception of Barry's (1990) The Advertising Portfolio, advertising texts tend to mention the portfolio more or less in passing (Bovee & Arens, 1989; Patti & Frazer, 1988; Wells, Burnett & Moriarty, 1992), indicating that it is necessary to have one, suggesting briefly the type and number of pieces to include, and advising that these pieces be "good" rather than "bad." While Barry's book offers more detailed information, it suffers from the problem any book-length prescription will confront: it becomes rapidly dated or, at best, one doesn't know what advice remains relevant. To avoid this problem, texts written for the teaching of creative classes (Albright, 1992; Bendinger, 1990; Jewler, 1995) must often follow their sound advice about the making of ads by offering general recommendations about the contents and presentation of the portfolio, recommendations which, in an industry perennially driven by the new and improved, may or may not have been qualified by recent trends, cross-national alliances, and technological innovation. Awareness of the implications of recent developments (and their effect on the contents of an entry-level book) shapes the Portfolio Center's (1995) statement in a recent promotional piece (Follow the Leaders...): "In addition to the Portfolio Center Advisory Board, Portfolio Center conducts a national survey annually, to continually address industry trends, industry developments, new technology and creative innovation." The necessity of timeliness perhaps also accounts for the paucity of scholarly articles specifically addressing the content and presentation of the entry-level portfolio. As mentioned above, this condition is slowly changing with recent research addressing, at least in part, what comprises the entrylevel portfolio. The work of Otnes et al. tapped the experience of both new and experienced creatives (Otnes, Spooner and Treise, 1993; Otnes, Oviatt, and Triese, 1995). Robbs (1996) draws from those studies, but employs a much larger sample of 132 creatives who reviewed the portfolios of entry-level job candidates. One of Robbs's questions about a university's curriculum specifically addresses portfolio content. …