ASA Non-broadcast Adjudication: CastNet Ltd

Complaint

Objection to a trade magazine ad that was headlined "Find Paid Acting Work Now!" and stated "Since 1997 CastNet has provided a unique service to trained, experienced actors like you." Under the heading "Consider these facts:" text stated "98.5% of CastNet subscribers receive a casting invitation within 4 weeks of joining the service. 70% of all job opportunities offer payment at industry-standard rates. We reject all commercial work offering unfair payment rates. 2,000+ casting invitations are sent to CastNet actors via our website every week. 10,000+ Actor searches are made on the CastNet website every week." Under the heading "Actors' Feedback" text stated "'My first job from CastNet came within two weeks of subscribing. The last two jobs alone were worth £10,000 - not to be sneezed at!' - David Riley (Actor)". The complainant challenged:

1. the claim "Since 1997";

2. the claim "98.5% of CastNet subscribers receive a casting invitation within 4 weeks of joining the service";

3. the claim "70% of all job opportunities offer payment at industry-standard rates. We reject all commercial work offering unfair payment rates";

4. the claim "2,000+ casting invitations are sent to CastNet actors via our website every week";

5. the claim "10,000+ Actor searches are made on the CastNet website every week";

6. the claim "My first job from CastNet came within two weeks of subscribing. The last two jobs alone were worth £10,000 - not to be sneezed at!", because he believed it exaggerated the likely earnings subscribers could expect to make using the advertisers services and

7. whether the testimonial was genuine.

CAP Code

Adjudication

1. Complaint upheld

CastNet Ltd (CastNet) said their managing director had been operating the service as a sole trader from 1997 until April 2002 and as a limited company since then. Their accountants sent copies of CastNet's sole trading accounts from 2000 to 2002. CastNet also sent information that showed their website had been registered since 1999. The ASA received an e-mail from someone who said they had been a client of the CastNet service since 1997; the client did not, however, have any documentary evidence from 1997. We considered that because CastNet had not sent documentary evidence to show they had been trading from 1997, they had not substantiated the claim "Since 1997". We asked them to remove it from their ads.

The ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

2. Complaint upheld

CastNet sent information they said was extracted from their database; the information showed the names of people registered to their service, the date they joined the service and the date they received their first message; the data suggested that nearly all subscribers received a message within the first four weeks of registering with the service. We noted, however, the data did not specify what the first message consisted of and that CastNet were not able to send copies of any casting invitations when we requested to see a random selection. We considered that we had not seen evidence to substantiate the claim and asked CastNet to remove it from their ads.

The ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

3. Complaint upheld

CastNet said professional actors often participated in productions for no payment. They said the claim was intended to highlight that 70% of all job offers would offer payment at rates typical of those within the relevant sector. They said the figure of 70% was taken from their database; however, they did not provide evidence to substantiate that. We considered that, without evidence of how the figure "70%" was obtained, CastNet had not substantiated the claim and asked them to remove it from their ads.

The ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

4. & 5. Complaint upheld

CastNet sent a spreadsheet of data that stated the number of "webmessages" and "websearches" for each week since March 2004. The data showed more than 2,000 "webmessages" and more than 10,000 "websearches" for every week listed. We were concerned, however, at discrepancies in the data and, that when we requested clarification of the data, CastNet said they no longer held the data sent to us and that the discrepancies must have been caused by a formatting error. We considered that the information sent by CastNet was not sufficient to substantiate the claims; we asked them to remove the claims from their ads.

The ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

6. Complaint upheld

CastNet said they did not think the testimonial exaggerated likely earnings; they said it was merely a report of what one of their subscribers had said and they had made no comment on the content of it. We considered that some readers could infer from the ad that David Riley's earnings were typical for subscribers to CastNet's service We considered that, because CastNet had not sent evidence to show that the earnings claims were generally achievable, the ad exaggerated likely earnings for subscribers. We advised them to consult the CAP Copy Advice team before submitting future ads.

The ad breached CAP Code clauses 6.1 (Honesty), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 14.3 (Testimonials and endorsements) and 52.2 (Employment and business opportunities).

7. Complaint upheld

We understood from David Riley that the testimonial was genuine but that he had not given permission for it to be used. We noted the testimonial was genuine but were concerned that CastNet had not obtained permission to use it. We told them to obtain written permission before publishing testimonials in future.

The ad breached CAP Code clause 14.1 (Testimonials and endorsements).