Speed Portfolio Review – Atlanta

Contributed by: Atlanta

Description of program: Here is the email that when out to the chapter.

The April ASMP/Atlanta SE program is Speed Portfolio Review for our chapter’s Associate, Emerging and Student members (AES). This a terrific opportunity for our beginner members to gain experience and receive professional feedback on their images, portfolio layout and presentations. I believe Waylon Jennings said it best: “This is no dress rehearsal. We ARE professionals, and this IS the big time.”

Here’s how it works. We’ve targeted your fellow General Members to review your portfolio. Their backgrounds represent Advertising, Architecture, Commercial, Corporate, Editorial Fashion, Graphic Design, Portraiture and Fine Art photography. Each presenter will have the opportunity to have his/her portfolio(s) reviewed a minimum of three times.

The Speed Portfolio Review process will be as follows:

  • The review process will last about 1.25 hours.
  • Each presenter will need to reserve a spot by April 17th.
  • When making your reservation, the presenter should list his/her areas of interest in order of priority so we can best match you to the appropriate reviewer. Presenters will be paired with the reviewers who have experience in those subjects
  • Each Review will last 10 minutes.
  • Portfolios must be in print format and consist of no more than 20 images.
  • You (the presenter) will use the first 2 minutes to introduce yourself and your work to the reviewer. If you have any promos or other marketing material, by all means, include them in your presentation.
  • The next six minutes are spent with the reviewer looking at your book and offering feedback to the work.
  • After eight minutes, you’ll hear a two-minute warning.
  • There will be a two minute break between reviews for presenters to move on to the next reviewing station.

One final note to the AES members taking part. The reviewers we’ve chosen have each been in business over ten years and are incredibly visually astute. They will be able to provide excellent feedback on your work regardless of their specialty.

General Members, you’re probably asking yourselves, “Hey, what’s in it for me?” Well, bring your portfolios or marketing pieces to share. Because after the review period, a social hour will take place for General Members to share portfolios with each other and AES members. Portfolios will be displayed on a table for everyone to view. And if you’re interested in being a reviewer, please let us know.

How many people were needed to produce the meeting, and what were their tasks?
1 Team Leader to put out the emails, get commitments for judges and delegate other needs of the program. One person to pick up refreshments. On site, 2-3 to help setup and clean up.

For this program, we recruited 10 Judges.

Describe the type of location needed for the meeting.
A big studio space that will hold several tables. Make sure you have lots of space between tables to keep sound interference from other reviewers to a minimum.

It got kind of loud and echoey; carpet would have helped. A “cubicle” setup would have been nice, but would have been too expensive.

Break down the costs associated with putting on this type of meeting.
Refreshments: about $150
Studio Rental: In-kind
Judges fees: In-kind — experienced General Members serve as judges.

Describe the attendance and the fee structure used for this meeting.
We had about 15 Associate or Emerging members participate. Add the 10 judges and several other members who attended but just watched. Total attendance was about 35.

What was done to market or publicize the meeting?
Announcement at previous meeting and email only via National website.

Was this a public meeting or a chapter only meeting?
Only chapter members could show their work. But non-members were invited as well to watch.

Is there anything else we should know about this meeting and why it was so successful?
The response for Associate and Emerging members was tremendous. It was helpful that we had some general members step up to be the judges. We find that the programs where people interact are the most successful ones.