Ad description
Claims in an online classified ad and on the Magpie Models website, viewed on 26 May 2011:
a. The online classified ad included the text "Magpie Models are still looking for models from all over the UK for local and national assignments. Our client base is over 200 large and small companies in the UK who are constantly looking for amateur and professional models for photoshoots, exhibitions, promotion work, overseas assignments and more. Our models have been seen on TV, on the catwalk, in the press, magazines, newspapers, brochures, catalogues, websites and more ...";
b. Text on the Magpie Models website included "… we just do it RIGHT NO commission charged to clients and NO commission taken from models' hard earned fees And we mean ZERO, ZILCH commission Are you serious? A NO COMMISSION MODEL AGENCY AND WE'RE NOT JOKING That's right! Absolutely zero, zilch commission charged. Just a great deal for both our clients looking for great models and for our models who don't want to get ripped off ... For clients looking for a model it is a MASSIVE money saver - direct contact - no commission at all - YOU do the negotiating and YOU pay the model. We just ask a nominal fee for their CV and contact details ...".
Issue
Clive Hurst challenged whether claims were misleading and could be substantiated:
1. in ad (a), that "Our client base is over 200 large and small companies in the UK who are constantly looking for amateur and professional models ...";
2. in ad (a), that "Our models have been seen on TV, on the catwalk, in the press, magazines, newspapers, brochures, catalogues, websites and more ..."; and
3. in ad (b), that "YOU do the negotiating and YOU pay the model. We just ask a nominal fee for their CV and contact details ...".
Clive Hurst also challenged whether:
4. ad (b) misleadingly implied there was no charge to models, because he understood such agencies usually charged fees for photography; and
5. the ads breached the Code, because they did not include full contact details for Magpie Models.
Response
1. Magpie Models (MM) said they had worked in the entertainment industry for years prior to the company being formed. The respondent said he had worked for a large events company and had been involved in wedding shows throughout the north of England during 2009 and 2010. He said, from that alone, he had contacts at over 500 companies and at least half of them, from high street chains to local photographers and videographers, used the models regularly. He said he had placed models for many companies over a two-year period.
2. They said they had over 190 models; 120 were online at the time they responded to the ASA and the CVs of 60 to 70 were in the process of being checked. They submitted the CV of one model and said she had appeared in the national press and had worked for bridal companies, among other assignments. They said other models had appeared, for example, on satellite TV, in national television dramas and on the catwalk for an international chain. They said it would not, however, be practical to submit every model's CV.
3. They said there were no charges at all to the models and when the site went live to their database of contacts they would have no involvement at all with the models' fees. MM said they made money only from selling models' CVs online; if a CV was purchased, it would be e-mailed directly to the client once the payment was received. Companies then dealt with the models and any payments to them directly. They said they were aware of models having had bad experiences previously and wanted professional and aspiring models, actors and singers to get the best deal without any agency fees.
4. MM said their aim was to change how agencies worked; they did not charge models at all and did not ask for paid photography sessions. They said models submitted their own photos and it was for them to determine the quality they were happy with; variations in quality could be noted on their website. They said they could give advice but did not request any payment.
5. MM responded by providing their contact details. They said they were happy to take advice in relation to their advertising.
Assessment
1. & 2. Upheld
The ASA noted MM's comments. We also noted, however, they had not submitted documentary evidence that their client base was "... over 200 large and small companies in the UK who are constantly looking for amateur and professional models ....". We noted the CV they submitted but noted that evidence related to only one model. Nevertheless, we considered CVs to be insufficient to demonstrate that their models had appeared in the assignments listed in the ad. In the absence of documentary evidence that demonstrated that their models had appeared "... on TV, on the catwalk, in the press, magazines, newspapers, brochures, catalogues, websites and more ...", and that their client base was "... over 200 large and small companies in the UK who are constantly looking for amateur and professional models ...", we concluded that the ad breached the Code.
On Points 1 and 2, ad (a) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Substantiation).
3. & 4. Upheld
We again noted MM's comments but also noted we had not seen documentary evidence in support of the claims "YOU do the negotiating and YOU pay the model. We just ask a nominal fee for their CV and contact details ..." or, more generally, that there were no charges to models. We therefore concluded that the ad breached the Code.
On Points 3 and 4, ad (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Substantiation).
5. Upheld
Because MM were an employment agency and did not provide their full contact details in the ads, we concluded that they breached the Code.
On this point, ads (a) and (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 20.3 20.3 Employment agencies and employment businesses must make clear in their marketing communications their full names and contact details and, in relation to each position they advertise, whether it is for temporary or permanent work. (Employment agencies and employment businesses).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told MM to ensure they held substantiation before making future claims. We also told them to ensure future ads included their full contact details.
