ASA Non-broadcast Adjudication: Regardez Ltd

Complaint

A regional press ad, for Regardez Models & Artistes, claimed "MODELS & EXTRAS DO YOU THINK YOU HAVE THE NECESSARY QUALITIES TO BE A MODEL OR EXTRA IF SO COME ALONG TO THE CROWNE PLAZA HOTEL ... FOR A FREE PHOTO TEST SHOT & PHOTOGRAPH ...". The complainants:

1. challenged the claim "FREE PHOTO TEST SHOT & PHOTOGRAPH" and

2. believed the ad was misleading, because it did not make clear that applicants were asked to pay a fee of £160.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Adjudication

Regardez said everyone who attended the advertised event was informed straight away that, if they were selected to join the agency, they had to supply photographs: they could either provide their own photographs at their own expense or they could pay Regardez £160 to produce the photographs for them. Regardez said there was no registration fee and applicants could join for free if they already had their own photographs. They explained that, at the point of receiving the information about photographs, applicants could decide whether or not to stay at the event; they took a free photo test shot of everyone who stayed to see how they reacted to the camera. Regardez said most applicants were considered unsuitable for agency representation and were not selected to join. They sent contact details of some of the people who had attended the advertised event; they said those people had had a free photo test shot and had received their free photograph on a disk within six weeks of the event.

The ASA contacted some of the people who had attended the advertised event and found out that they had all been told that they had to pay to be represented by Regardez; some people believed the cost of representation was £180; others believed it was £160 or £170. Some people were told the cost would be less if they could provide their own photographs but no one was told that it was possible to join for free. They declined to pay the fee and received a disk in the post after the event. In some cases the disk contained their free photograph but in other cases the disk was damaged and unusable.

1. Complaints not upheld

Although we were concerned that the free photograph sometimes arrived in a damaged state, we were satisfied that Regardez provided a free photo test shot and photograph.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness) but did not find it in breach.

2. Complaints upheld

We were concerned that the people we contacted had been told they had to pay a fee if they wanted to join Regardez, which contradicted Regardez's assertion that applicants could join the agency for free if they already had their own photographs. We noted the ad did not mention any fee but claimed "MODELS & EXTRAS DO YOU THINK YOU HAVE THE NECESSARY QUALITIES TO BE A MODEL OR EXTRA ... CHILDREN, TEENAGERS & ADULTS, AGES FROM 6 MONTHS TO 75 YRS ..." and considered that it implied Regardez were offering not only a free photo test shot and photograph but also the opportunity to be represented by them in the model and extras industry without a fee. We were not satisfied that Regardez did not charge a fee for their service. We concluded that the ad was misleading and told Regardez that, unless they could provide evidence to show that respondents to the ad could be represented by them without a fee, they should make clear in future ads that a fee was applicable for successful applicants.

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