ASA Adjudication on Talent Search UK

Ad

An ad in the regional press (a) and a follow-up leaflet (b) for Talent Search UK stated:

a. "MODELS & EXTRAS DO YOU THINK YOU HAVE THE NECESSARY QUALITIES TO BE A MODEL OR EXTRA?CATALOGUE, PHOTOGRAPHIC & FILM/T.V. EXTRA WORK, FASHION & PROMOTIONAL WORK ... ARRIVE EARLY TO AVOID DISSAPOINTMENT [SIC]. LIMITED SPACES". Text at the bottom of the ad stated "Placement with UK agencies".

b. "Some TV Credits/Modelling Assignments our Agencies have are as follows:- Eastenders (BBC), Cadburys, Calvin Klein, Channel 5, Chicago Rock Cafe, Coca Cola Enterprises Ltd ... Talent Search Ltd is associated with London and other UK agencies ...".

Issue

Clive Hurst and Ray Hoppkrofft challenged whether:

1. ad (a) misleadingly implied that immediate work was available directly with Talent Search. They understood from ad (b) that Talent Search acted only as an intermediary that provided clients' details to other agencies;

2. the claim "Some TV Credits/Modelling Assignments our Agencies have are as follows:- Eastenders (BBC), Cadburys, Calvin Klein, Channel 5, Chicago Rock Cafe, Coca Cola Enterprises Ltd ... " in ad (b) was misleading and could be substantiated;

3. the claim "Talent Search Ltd is associated with London and other UK agencies ..." in ad (b) was misleading and could be substantiated; and

4. ad (a) had breached the Code as it did not include full contact details for Talent Search UK Ltd.

CAP Code (Edition 12)

Response

Talent Search UK Ltd (Talent Search) said their role was limited to finding agencies for their members. They said they were a new company but that they were honest and reputable and that their staff had many years experience in the industry.

1. Talent Search pointed out that ad (a) expressly stated "for placement with UK agencies". They believed this made clear to readers what was being offered. They stated that they had included their website address in the ad so that readers could find more detail on the company and what they did. They stated that they also included a 24-hour telephone number in the ad so that readers could request more information over the phone. They said that castings were open immediately for successful applicants but that they could not guarantee that their members would be selected and offered work.

2. Talent Search confirmed that their postal address was as shown in ad (b).

3. Talent Search stated that ad (b) had made clear the credits were not theirs but belonged to the agencies with who they put their members in contact. They provided details of the talent agency to which all of the credits included in the ad belonged and stated that the list of credits was available on that agencys website.

4. Talent Search provided correspondence between them and an established talent agency which they believed demonstrated the existence of their business relationship. They said they were in the process of sending members to other agencies.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA understood that Talent Search was an employment agency which referred clients to other modelling and extras agencies but did not offer work directly. We noted that their terms and conditions made this clear. We considered, however, that the implication of the ad, which began "DO YOU THINK YOU HAVE THE NECESSARY QUALITIES TO BE A MODEL OR EXTRA?" and which went on to say "WE ARE LOOKING FOR [INDIVIDUALS] FOR CATALOGUE, PHOTOGRAPHIC & FILM/T.V. EXTRA WORK, FASHION & PROMOTIONAL WORK", was that Talent Search sought clients for work that was available directly through them. We noted that text in the bottom-left corner of the ad stated "Placement with UK agencies" but we also noted that this text was not linked to anything in the body of the ad and we considered that this did not alter the overall impression of the ad. We acknowledged that an "Info Line" and website address were provided, however, we noted that the "Info Line" was a mobile phone number and that only the home-page of the website could be accessed without a user-name and password. We nevertheless considered that the copy of the ad should have been sufficiently clear and unambiguous so that readers could understand the nature of the service being promoted without requiring information from other sources.

We noted the ad listed the type of work being promoted and added "NO EXPERIENCE NEC ... ARRIVE EARLY TO AVOID DISSAPOINTMENT [SIC]. LIMITED SPACES". We considered that readers would infer from this that work for successful applicants was available immediately, which was not the case as Talent Search would only introduce clients to other agents for representation.

Because we understood that work was not available immediately or directly through Talent Search, we concluded the ad was misleading.

On this point ad (a) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 3.1 (misleading advertising) and 20.2 (Employment).

2. Upheld

We noted that ad (a) failed to state Talent Searchs full contact details.

On this point ad (a) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 20.3 (Employment Agencies and employment businesses).

3. Upheld

We noted that ad (b) referred to Talent Search as "a UK Talent Scouting Company" and explained that "Our role, as a Scouting company, is to find new faces for Model and TV Casting Agencies in the UK ... If you are selected by one of our 'talent scouts'... we will promote the right individual to the agencies which fit your profile". We therefore considered that readers would understand from the statement "Some TV Credits/Modelling Assignments our Agencies have" that the credits belonged to agencies associated with Talent Search, not to Talent Search directly. We noted that the list of credits appeared on the website of an agency to which Talent Search had agreed in principle to refer their members, however, we had not seen evidence to show that those credits were genuine and we therefore concluded that the claim had not been substantiated and was misleading.

On this point ad (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation).

4. Upheld

We accepted that Talent Search had agreed in principle to refer their members to one talent agency. We considered, however, that ad (b) implied they had developed relationships with a number of agencies in London and the rest of the UK. We received no evidence to demonstrate that such relationships existed and we therefore concluded that the claim in ad (b) had not been substantiated and was misleading.

On this point ad (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation).

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)