ASA Adjudication on Artimis Models & Promotions Ltd

Ad

An ad in the trade press, for Artimis Models & Promotions (Artimis), stated "FITTING MODELS REQUIRED Due to increasing demand we are looking for male & female people of all sizes to join our Model Agency. For further information and registration form go to ...".

Issue

The Modelling Information Service challenged whether:

1. the ad was misleading, because they believed Artimis were an employer and not an agency; and

2. the ad offered genuine vacancies.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. Artimis asserted that there were two parts to their company: an employment agency and an employment business. They said they had worked with the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (DBERR) to ensure that they followed all Government legislation and DBERR had informed them that there was nothing preventing them from running the two businesses parallel to each other. Artimis said, as an employment agency, the models were self-employed and Artimis collected the models fee from the hirer, deducted the agreed amount of commission and then passed the payment to the model who was responsible for paying their own tax and national insurance. They said, as an employment business, they had contracts with their workers and supplied them to the hirer for their direction and control. Artimis were responsible for paying those workers and for deducting tax and national insurance contributions.  They sent a copy of their contract for models joining the employment agency.

2. Artimis asserted that they only  advertised for genuine vacancies for clients of their employment agency. They said, at the time the ad appeared, they had had requests from their agency clients for models in a wide range of different sizes from size 10 women to extra large men. They believed, because there were so many different sizes required across such a wide range, it was appropriate to state "all sizes" rather than state each individual size required. They said they were regularly looking for new models because requests constantly came in from clients. They said the search for the right model for a client could take some time, in some cases over a year. They asserted that if they required a specific size or type of model they would make that clear in their ads. They sent copies of a sample of e-mails from their clients detailing their requests for models.

Assessment

1. Not upheld

The ASA contacted DBERR, who told us Artimis acted as both an employment agency and as an employment business; they said there was nothing preventing a business acting in both capacities. They referred to the Employment Agencies Act 1973 which detailed the difference between an employment business and an employment agency. Because we understood that Artimis operated as an employment agency and that the ad was for that agency, not their employment business, we considered that the ad was not misleading.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 52.2 (Employment and business opportunities) but did not find it in breach.

2. Not upheld

We noted the client e-mails sent by Artimis showed that there had been requests for a wide range of different sized models. Because we understood that the ad was for genuine modelling work for which  Artimis employment agency could provide a selection of models, we considered that the ad was not misleading.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 52.1 (Employment and business opportunities) but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action necessary.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)