ASA Non-broadcast Adjudication: Hidden Faces Ltd

Complaint

A direct mailing advertised a casting agency. Clive Hurst challenged whether the claim:

1. "OUR MAIN CLIENTS INCLUDE: THE BBC ... " could be substantiated;

2. "Hidden Faces is one of the UK's leading Casting Agencies that provides Extras" could be substantiated;

3. "Pinewood Studios, where 50% of British films are made" could be substantiated;

4. "Until recently the Extras Industry was a closed shop and only open to union members" was misleading, because he believed the 'closed shop' agreement had ended in 1988 and

5. "Leading Casting Directors and Production Companies view our artists constantly" could be substantiated.

CAP Code

Adjudication

The ASA noted Hidden Faces changed their trading name after the ad appeared to Hidden Talent Model & Casting Agency.

Hidden Faces Ltd (Hidden Faces) said the mailing was not a marketing communication and did not fall under the terms of the CAP Code because it was a private business letter, which was addressed to a named individual recipient. They pointed out that the letter was posted and not faxed as the copy of the mailing suggested. We considered that the mailing, which invited recipients to join Hidden Faces' agency for a fee of £149.50, was a marketing communication.

1. Complaint upheld

Hidden Faces said they had procured work consistently for its registered artists with the BBC. They sent copies of several invoices, which showed that Hidden Faces artists had worked on BBC productions. Hidden Faces said the BBC, as a national broadcaster with an international reputation, was quite rightly regarded as one of their main clients.

We noted the invoices sent by Hidden Faces showed that they had supplied 12 extras to the BBC at the beginning of 2005. Although we noted Hidden Faces' assertion that the BBC's reputation meant they regarded them as a main client, we considered that readers were likely to understand the claim "OUR MAIN CLIENTS INCLUDE: THE BBC" to mean that a significant proportion of Hidden Faces' artist's work was on BBC productions. We considered that the information sent did not show what proportion of work came from the BBC as opposed to other clients and concluded that Hidden Faces had not substantiated their claim.

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

2. Complaint upheld

Hidden Faces said they had provided extras for a large number of productions and believed that it was reasonable for them to refer to themselves as "one of the UK's leading Casting Agencies that provides extras". They sent a list of some productions and maintained they had provided artists for those productions.

We noted the list of productions for which Hidden Faces claimed they had provided extras. We considered, however, that to substantiate the claim "one of the UK's leading Casting Agencies that provides Extras" Hidden Faces needed to provide evidence of highest turnover or market share; we noted they had not done that. We concluded that Hidden Faces had not substantiated the claim and asked them to remove it from their future ads.

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

3. Complaint upheld

Hidden faces said Pinewood Studios had recently merged with Shepperton Studios and acquired Teddington Studios. They maintained that the newly combined Pinewood Shepperton Studios was now recognised as Europe's largest studio. Hidden Faces sent several sources from the internet that, they maintained, supported their claim.

We noted the information sent indicated that the studios' facilities were the largest in Europe and that several major productions were produced there each year. We considered that readers were likely to infer from the claim that half of all current or recent British film productions were made at Pinewood Shepperton Studios. We contacted Pinewood Shepperton Studios but they could not confirm that 50% of British films were made at their studios. We concluded that the claim was misleading.

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

4. Complaint upheld

Hidden Faces said the statement "Until recently the Extras Industry was a closed shop and only open to union members" was factually correct and was intended to reassure work-seekers that they did not require union membership to work as an extra. They maintained that work-seekers often questioned whether union membership was required and that other agencies frequently used that type of claim to address the matter.

We noted the closed shop arrangement, which allowed for only union members to take extras roles, had ended in 1988. Although we noted Hidden Faces' assertion that the claim was intended to inform recipients that the previous restrictions on extras roles had been lifted, we considered that in the context of the ad the claim was likely to be seen as an encouragement to recipients, who would have little understanding of the issues relating to union membership, to seek extras work. Because we considered that the word "recently" was likely to lead recipients to believe the change had occurred in the past few years, we concluded that the claim was likely to mislead.

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

5. Complaint upheld

Hidden Faces maintained that their list of artists was consulted regularly by casting directors and production companies. They said they frequently sent expensively produced and updated casting directories to such individuals and organisations and pointed out that the Hidden Faces website provided details of artists seeking work. They forwarded several covering letters, sent by registered delivery, that had accompanied their directories, which, they maintained, showed some of the recipients of the casting directories.

We noted the recipients of the covering letter were involved in casting for production companies. Although we were satisfied that Hidden Faces had sent their casting directories to casting directors and production companies, we considered we had not seen evidence that the people to whom the directories were sent had viewed regularly, if at all, or considered the artists featured in them. We concluded that Hidden Faces had not substantiated the claim and asked them to remove it from their future ads.

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