Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, all were Upheld.
Ad description
A website for a modelling directory, stated on its 'Home' page, "La Mode model directory is a leading model database which features the top emerging talent of the model industry the country [sic]. Our model directory makes it easier for clients to cast models for assignments from commercials to catwalk. The model directory features all types of models child/teenage to mature. Our directory has been successful in helping unsigned and emerging models to get work and also feature on front covers of magazines". Text on the 'Castings' page stated, "La Mode Directory does not act as an agency, therefore we do not charge a commission".
Issue
Clive Hurst challenged whether the following claims were misleading:
1. "La Mode model directory is a leading model database";
2. "Our directory has been successful in helping unsigned and emerging models to get work and also feature on front covers of magazines"; and
3. "La Mode Directory does not act as an agency, therefore we do not charge a commission".
Response
La Mode (London) Ltd (La Mode) said they had never received any income as "an agency". They said they were a model advice company, as stated on their website.
Assessment
1. Upheld
We considered that consumers would understand the claim that La Mode was a "leading model database" to be an objective claim capable of substantiation with evidence relating to the amount of work that La Mode had helped to secure for their clients. In the absence of any relevant supporting evidence we concluded that the claim was unsubstantiated and therefore misleading.
On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising), 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) and 3.38 3.38 Marketing communications that include a comparison with an unidentifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, the consumer. The elements of the comparison must not be selected to give the marketer an unrepresentative advantage. (Other comparisons).
2. Upheld
In the absence of any supporting evidence for this claim we concluded that it was unsubstantiated and therefore misleading.
On this point the ad 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. Upheld
We noted that the website stated, "La Mode Directory does not act as an agency, therefore we do not charge a commission". We understood that La Mode did not charge a commission. However, we also noted the Employment Agencies Act 1973 defined an employment agency as the business, whether not carried on with a view to profit, of providing services, whether by the provision of information or otherwise, for the purpose of finding persons employment or supplying employers with persons for employment.
We noted that the website primarily offered photographic services, but also had a 'Castings' section, which listed modelling opportunities, a model directory and also that it claimed to offer model advice for aspiring models. We therefore considered that La Mode were in the business of providing services for the purpose of finding aspiring models employment with employers and therefore were an employment agency. Because the website stated that they were not an agency, we concluded that it was in breach of the Code.
On this point the ad 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).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form.
