ASA Adjudication on West 1 Casting Ltd

Ad

A regional press ad, for Model Management UK, was headlined "MODELS AND EXTRAS". Text below stated "DO YOU THINK YOU HAVE THE NECESSARY QUALITIES TO BE AN EXTRA? IF SO COME ALONG TO THE JURY'S INN HOTEL ... for a FREE PHOTOTEST SHOT AND PHOTOGRAPH We are looking for Children ... Teenagers ... Adults ... *For placement with UK agencies. No experience necessary". Small text at the bottom of the ad stated "*subject to terms and conditions".

Issue

Clive Hurst and three members of the public challenged whether the ad was misleading because:

1. it did not make clear that Model Management charged successful applicants a fee, and

2. applicants were charged a further fee to be placed with a model agency.

CAP Code

Response

1. Model Management UK (Model Management) said they did not charge all successful applicants a fee to represent them. They said they only charged those applicants that did not have their own photos a fee of £189. They said the fee paid for the photos they took to promote the applicant. They emphasised that they gave applicants the option of having photographs taken elsewhere and sent 10 forms with attached photos from applicants they said they had taken on for free. They said only a minority of applicants paid a fee.

2.  Model Management said not all the agencies they referred people to charged a fee. They pointed out that those companies were independent agencies with no financial connection to Model Management. They said they asked their applicants to read and sign clause 21 of  their terms and conditions. Clause 21 stated "Agencies charge an administration fee to the model/artiste which covers the cost of casting books, being placed onto agencies website and or modelling cards. I have read and understand clause 21 ......... signature of  model/artiste/parent/guardian".

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA noted Model Management's assertion that they did not charge the majority of applicants a fee, and that the fee they charged of £189 related to the cost of photos taken to promote the successful applicants only. However, because they did not send evidence to show what proportion of their applicants were charged a fee, and because the contracts they asked applicants to sign did not state that the £189 fee covered the cost of photos, we considered they had not shown that most successful applicants were not charged a fee, or that the fee charged related to the cost of the photos. We concluded the ad was misleading.

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

2. Upheld

We noted Model Management's assertion that not all the agencies they referred people to charged a fee. However, because clause 21 of their terms and conditions stated unequivocally "Agencies charge an administration fee to the model/Artiste ... ", and because they specifically asked successful applicants to read and sign that clause, we considered that that information may affect a person's decision to go to the Jury's Inn hotel, and should have been included in the ad.  Because it was not, we concluded that the ad was misleading.

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

Action

We told Model Management not to repeat the ad. We advised them to seek guidance from the CAP Copy Advice team for terms and conditions that should be included in future ads.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)