ASA Non-broadcast Adjudication: West 1 Casting Ltd

Complaint

A regional press ad, for West 1 (previously trading as West 1 Promotions), claimed "MODELS & EXTRAS Do you think you have the necessary qualities to be a model or extra? If so come along to the BRITANNIA HOTEL ... for a FREE PHOTOTEST SHOT & PHOTOGRAPH We are looking for Children 1 - 12 years for Catalogue, photographic & film/T.V. extra work Teenagers 13 - 17 years for Catalogue, photographic, film/T.V. extra work, fashion & catwalk Adults 18 - 75 years for Catalogue, photographic, film/T.V. work, fashion & promotional work No experience necessary ...". The complainants:

1. challenged the claim "FREE PHOTOTEST SHOT & PHOTOGRAPH" and

2. believed the ad was misleading, because it did not make clear that West 1 charged successful applicants a fee of £179.

One complainant believed the ad:

3. misleadingly suggested that West 1 were offering work directly and

4. was misleading, because it did not identify West 1 as the advertisers.

CAP Code

Adjudication

West 1 said the main purpose of the advertised event was to enable them to take a free test shot of applicants to see what they looked like on camera. They said everyone who attended the event received a free photo, regardless of how many people turned up. They asserted that, after having their photo taken and reading the company's literature, a minority of applicants chose to join West 1, which incurred a fee of £179 for photography and administration. They said the fee was explained to the applicants at the event and in the literature, and it was up to them to decide whether they wanted to pay it to be part of West 1; they could either pay at the event or visit the office at a later date. West 1 said the vast majority of people who attended the event did not join West 1 and were turned away with a free photo. They sent contact details of some of the people who had attended the advertised event; they said those people had received a free photo test shot and photograph and had paid nothing. West 1 did not want to state in the ad that a fee applied for successful applicants because they believed it would contradict the claim "FREE PHOTOTEST SHOT & PHOTOGRAPH" and would confuse people. They suggested including the text "Conditions apply".

The ASA contacted some of the people who had attended the advertised event and found out that they had received a free Polaroid and had been told that a fee of £179 was payable if they wanted to be represented by West 1; they declined to pay the fee and left with the free Polaroid.

1. Complaints not upheld

We were satisfied that the claim "FREE PHOTOTEST SHOT & PHOTOGRAPH" had been substantiated.

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 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? ... We are looking for Children 1 - 12 years for Catalogue, photographic & film/T.V. extra work ..." and considered that it implied West 1 were offering not only a free test shot and photograph but also the opportunity for applicants to get work in the model and extras industry without a fee. We noted West 1's service incurred a fee; we considered that that should be made clear in the ad and that including the text "Conditions apply" would not go far enough. We concluded that the ad was misleading and told West 1 to 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).

3. Complaint upheld

West 1 said they would include the text "for placement with UK agencies" in future ads.

We noted the ad claimed " ... We are looking for Children 1 - 12 years for ... T.V. extra work Teenagers 13 - 17 years for Catalogue, photographic, film ... Adults 18 - 75 years for ... T.V. work, fashion & promotional work ..." and considered that it suggested that West 1 were offering work directly. We understood, however, that West 1 placed successful applicants with agencies. We considered that, because it did not make that clear, the ad was misleading. We welcomed West 1's willingness to co-operate and their decision to include the text "for placement with UK agencies" in future ads.

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

4. Complaint upheld

West 1 said they would include their website address in future ads.

We noted the ad did not identify West 1 as the advertisers but provided an information line, which was a mobile phone number. We considered that readers who were interested in attending the event might first want to find out about the company advertising it and considered that it ought to be possible for readers to avoid paying the cost of a call to a mobile phone to find out who the company was. Because it did not identify West 1 as the advertisers, we considered that the ad was misleading. We considered that including the website address in the ad would identify West 1 as the advertisers and welcomed West 1's decision to do so.

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