ASA Adjudication on EIMAJ Ltd

Ad

A regional press ad for Eimaj was headlined “Models and extras required”. Further text stated “CHILDREN 1-12 YRS CATALOGUE, PHOTOGRAPHIC, TV/FILM EXTRA (must be confident) ***TEENAGERS 13-19 YRS PHOTOGRAPHIC, CATALOGUE, TV/FILM EXTRA, MAGAZINE (must be confident) ***adults 18-70 YRS CATALOGUE, PHOTOGRAPHIC, TV/FILM EXTRA, MAGAZINE, PROMOTIONAL FUNCTIONS, EVENTS, (TRAVEL WILL BE REQUIRED) JUST TURN UP ON EITHER DAY (DRESSED SMART/CASUAL) FOR OPEN DAY INTERVIEWS AND SELECTION (DO NOT CONFUSE WITH OTHERS) … PLEASE TURN UP AT THE VENUE BETWEEN 10.00AM AND 4.00PM ON EITHER SATURDAY OR SUNDAY UNDER 18’S [sic] MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A PARENT/GUARDIAN …”.

Issue

Clive Hurst believed the ad was misleading because:

1.  it did not make clear that costs were involved in enlisting with the agency;

2.  it suggested that Eimaj offered work directly, whereas he understood that clients' details were referred on to other companies; and

3.  it suggested that work was available.

4.  The ASA challenged whether the ad was misleading, because it did not clarify that Eimaj were an agency.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1.  Eimaj explained that customers only incurred costs when they chose to have a portfolio of photographs taken.  They said, if a customer chose not to have a portfolio taken, they could become a member of Eimaj free of charge; customers were not obliged to pay a fee to attend auditions or become a member.  Eimaj said this was made clear to customers upon arrival.  They explained that they offered two types of contract; one for those who chose to have a portfolio of photographs taken with Eimaj at a cost of £165 and another for those who supplied their own photographs at no cost to the client.  They said they had found work for several clients who had never paid.

They said the ad contained an error, however, because it should have included the text "Costs may be incurred".

2.  Eimaj explained that, when a client joined Eimaj, they were informed that they would be placed with several agencies with whom they would thenceforth be directly employed.  They said it was the responsibility of the agency, and not Eimaj, to supply work to the client and that the client was informed of this at their interview and in the contract they were asked to sign.

3.  Eimaj said they were able to give examples of a child, a teen and an adult receiving work as a result of signing with them.  They said they had recently been involved, through an agency acting on behalf of Channel 4, in supplying candidates to audition for work as supporting artists in a forthcoming production.  They submitted an invoice, which was addressed to an agency, and a list of supporting artists who were provided by that agency for a production in April 2007.

4.  Eimaj said they were not an agency, but a promotion company.  They said they were a legitimate business and that they were willing to amend their advertising in any way to comply with the CAP Code; they suggested that they would add text to their future marketing to state that they were an agency if that was required.

Assessment

1.  Upheld

The complainant provided us with a copy of Eimaj's terms and conditions and pointed out that they stated that a cost of £165 was incurred in enlisting with Eimaj.  We also understood from Eimaj that costs only applied if clients chose to have a portfolio of photographs taken with them; otherwise it was possible to enlist and be eligible for employment without payment.  

While we accepted that in some circumstances it was possible for clients to find work through Eimaj without paying a fee, we considered that the ad should have clarified that costs could apply, because this was a significant condition likely to affect readers decision to attend the advertised event.  Although we understood that this ad had appeared in error and Eimaj had intended to include the text "Costs may be incurred" in their ads, we concluded that, because the ad did not make clear that a fee may apply, it was misleading.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clause 7.1 (Truthfulness).

2.  Upheld

We understood that Eimaj did not offer work directly, but referred successful clients on to other agencies for work; we noted their terms and conditions demonstrated that Eimaj were an acting employment agency who passed clients on to other modelling and extras agencies.  We considered, however, that the implication of the ad, which was headlined "Models and extras required", was that Eimaj sought clients for work to be provided directly through them.  Because that was not the case, we considered that the ad was misleading.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 6.1 (Honesty) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

3.  Upheld

We noted the ad stated "Models and extras required"; it listed the type of work being promoted, which included "... TV/FILM EXTRA, MAGAZINE, PROMOTIONAL FUNCTIONS, EVENTS ..." and added "(TRAVEL WILL BE REQUIRED)".  We considered that readers would infer from this that work for successful applicants was available immediately, whereas  the Eimaj terms and conditions clarified their role as an introductory agency only, which passed clients to other agents for representation.

We noted from the evidence supplied by Eimaj that an agency had supplied extras for Channel 4 productions in April 2007.  We considered, however, that this did not demonstrate that work was available through Eimaj or that work was available immediately for all successful clients.  Because Eimaj had not shown this we considered that the ad was likely to mislead.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 6.1 (Honesty) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

4.  Upheld

We understood that Eimaj introduced clients to employers via third party agencies.  We considered, therefore, that they were an employment agency; the CAP Code stipulated that an employment agency must make its status clear in marketing communications.  Because the ad did not make clear that Eimaj were an agency, we considered that it was misleading.  We welcomed Eimaj's willingness to comply with the Code and to clarify that they were an agency in future marketing.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 52.3 (Employment and business opportunities).

Action

We told Eimaj to ensure that future marketing communications made clear that they were an agency and that costs may be involved in enlisting with them.  We also told them to remove any implication that Eimaj offered work directly or that work was available immediately.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)