|
Fresh Faces London Ltd
5 Regents Court
92 Randolph Avenue
London
W9 1BG Complaint:
Modelling Information Service objected to a specialist newspaper advertisement that was headlined "Film Extras, Models and Promotional Staff".
It stated "Fresh Faces is the UK leading online resource for anyone wanting a career in Modeling [sic], Promotion and TV Film Extra work. Our Directories are constantly updated, sign up today to be automatically entered into our monthly competition to win a portfolio at studio 64 Knightsbridge London worth £600.00 simply go to www.freshfaces.co.uk for details". The complainants objected that the advertisement was misleading because:
1. it did not state that consumers had to pay a fee to the advertisers and
2. he believed the prize of a " ... portfolio at studio 64 Knightsbridge London worth £600.00 ... " did not exist.
3. The Authority objected that the advertisement neither stated the terms and conditions or criteria for judging competition entries nor made clear the nature of the Directories. Codes Section: 3.1, 7.1, 27.4, 33.1, 34.1, 35.7, 35.9, 52.7 (Ed 11)
Adjudication:
1. Complaint upheld
The advertisers stated that they charged a fee for the Directories, which they sold online. They asserted that the advertisement was the first one they had placed and they did not know that it had to refer to their fee; they believed the publishers should have told them about the need to refer to the fee because they knew that it was their first advertisement. The Authority reminded the advertisers of their primary responsibility to ensure their advertisements conformed with the Code. The Authority considered that the advertisement did not make clear that the advertisers charged a fee for the Directories and that entry to the competition was based on purchase of the Directories. It advised the advertisers to amend the advertisement to make clear that they were selling directories. The Authority advised the advertisers to consult the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) Copy Advice team before placing similar advertisements in future.
2. Complaint not upheld
The advertisers maintained that the competition existed; they sent the names and contact details of previous winners and the terms and conditions of the competition. They sent a letter from Studio 64; it stated that Studio 64 in conjunction with the advertisers offered a prize of a photographic shoot and a modelling portfolio valued at £600. The Authority was satisfied that the competition was genuine.
3. Upheld
The advertisers asserted that the advertisement was the first one they had placed and they did not know that it had to refer to the competition''s terms and conditions or the criteria for judging competition entries; they believed the publishers should have advised them on the wording of the advertisement and told them about the need to refer to terms and conditions and the criteria for judging competition entries because they knew that it was their first advertisement. The advertisers pointed out that the terms and conditions of the competition were on their website. The Authority understood that the advertisers'' Directories contained lists of agencies for television and film extra, modelling and promotional work and advice about how to start in those careers. The Authority considered that the advertisement did not make clear the nature of the Directories. It advised the advertisers to amend the advertisement to make clear the nature of the Directories and to state the significant terms and conditions of the competition and the criteria for judging competition entries. The Authority advised the advertisers to consult the CAP Copy Advice team before placing similar advertisements in future. |
Home 
Articles 
