|
International Film Extras |
|
|
|
|
International Film Extras
Multicorp
28 de Febrero, 13 Local 2 (193)
29670 San Pedro
Alcantara, Mallaga
Spain Complaint:
Modelling Information Service objected to a regional press advertisement for a modelling agency headed "15 minutes of fame".
It continued "We are looking for New Faces for TV, Films, Commercials, Pop Videos and Promotions". The complainants objected that:
1. the advertisers did not disclose their name and contact details and misleadingly implied, through the use of an 0870 number, that they were based in the UK;
2. the advertisers did not make clear that a fee was payable to have photos published on the website and
3. challenged whether the advertisers offered genuine vacancies.
Codes Section: 3.1, 7.1, 52.2, 52.3 (Ed 11)
Adjudication:
The advertisers confirmed by telephone that they had removed the advertisement but did not respond in writing to the Authority. The Authority was concerned by the advertisers'' lack of written response and reminded them to respond in writing in future.
1. Complaint upheld
The Authority considered that the advertisement implied the advertisers were an employment agency, i.e. they provided services for the purpose of finding workers employment with employers or of supplying employers with workers for employment by them. Because the advertisers did not state their address in the advertisement it considered that the 0870 number implied the company was based in the UK. The Authority noted the CAP Code required employment agencies to state their full name and contact details. It told the advertisers that if they used the advertisement in future and had a non-geographic telephone number they should state their address if they provided employment agency services.
2. Complaint upheld
The Authority understood that the advertisers charged a fee of ?150 to include client''s details on their online brochure. The Authority concluded that, because it was not clear from the advertisement that the advertisers charged a fee, the advertisement was misleading. It reminded the advertisers to make clear, in future, that there was a fee for their services.
3. Complaint upheld
Because the advertisers did not send evidence that they had genuine vacancies, the Authority concluded that the advertisement was misleading. It reminded the advertisers to hold substantiation, if they advertised vacancies in future. |
Home 
Articles 
