ASA Adjudication on West 1 Casting Ltd

Ad

A leaflet for Model Management, a talent agency, stated “… Our role, as an independent promotions company, is to find new faces for Model & TV Casting Agencies in the UK … Some TV Credits / Modelling Assignments our Agencies have are as follows … The Bill … Eastenders …”.

Issue

Clive Hurst challenged:

1.  the claim "independent promotions company", because he understood that Model Management was very closely linked to the agency they referred successful applicants; and

2.  whether Model Management could demonstrate that applicants had found work or could be found work on either The Bill or Eastenders, because he understood that both programmes used only a select group of agencies.

CAP Code

Response

1.  Model Management UK (MM) explained that they acted as a promotions agency for their members and introduced them to other agencies for model, film or other artistic work.  They said, however, they only introduced members to independent agencies with whom they had no proprietary or other financial connection.

2.  MM did not comment specifically on whether applicants had found or could be found work on either The Bill or Eastenders.  They explained, however, that each successful applicant received a copy of MM's terms and conditions to read, together with an explanatory leaflet, before registering with them.

Assessment

1.  Upheld

The ASA understood that the parent company of MM, West 1 Casting Ltd, shared premises and management with Hidden Faces Ltd, trading as Hidden Talent, another agency, but that they operated separately from each other under their own directorship.  We noted from evidence submitted by the complainant that successful applicants from MM had been referred to Hidden Talent for representation.  We noted a fee was payable to MM to enlist with them and then a second fee could be payable to the agency they referred clients on to.

We considered that readers would interpret MM's claim "Our role as an independent promotions company ..." to mean that MM were not connected to the agencies they referred clients on to in any way and their motive for selecting any specific agency for client referral was not influenced by their connection.  In view of the business relationship between the two companies MM and Hidden Talent, we concluded that MM's claim to be "independent" was misleading.

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

2.  Upheld

We asked MM for evidence that successful applicants had found or could be found work on The Bill and Eastenders through the agencies they forwarded clients on to, but none was forthcoming.  In the absence of any substantiation to demonstrate that applicants had found work on either programme or that genuine vacancies existed, we concluded that the claim was likely to mislead.

On this point, the leaflet breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 52.2 (Employment and business opportunities).

Action

We told MM to remove the claim "independent" from their marketing material and not to imply successful applicants had found specific work or that vacancies existed unless they had documentary evidence to support the claims.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)