ASA Adjudication on Global Marketing Company
Global Marketing Company t/a
Extra Factory
29 Downs Court
Altrincham
WA14 2QD
Date:
27 June 2012
Media:
Internet (on own site)
Sector:
Employment
Number of complaints:
1
Complaint Ref:
A12-192858
Background
Summary of Council decision:
Four issues were investigated, of which four were Upheld.
Ad
Claims on a website for a casting agency for extras, ExtraFactory.co.uk, stated "Extra Factory is one of the most successful Extras and Casting Agencies in the UK and fast becoming the number one supplier of talented Artists, we have been providing Film and Television Extras for well over a decade. We regularly supply Extras, Actors, Voiceovers, and Models for many of the main channels such as the BBC, Granada and Sky". The ad featured logos for Hollyoaks, BBC, Emmerdale, The Bill, Waterloo Road, Channel Five and Holby City and a footnote stated "Part of the Global Marketing Company".
Issue
Clive Hurst challenged whether:
1. the claim "we have been providing Film and Television Extras for well over a decade" was misleading, because he understood the website was established in November 2009;
2. the claim "We regularly supply Extras, Actors, Voiceovers, and Models for many of the main channels such as the BBC, Granada and Sky" and the use of the logos was misleading and could be substantiated;
3. the website misled by omission, because it failed to state that applicants were required to have a portfolio of photographs of acceptable quality before they could be registered; and
4. the claim "Part of the Global Marketing Company" was misleading, because the complainant understood that such an organisation did not exist.
CAP Code (Edition 12)
Response
1. The Extra Factory's owner stated he had supplied extras for over a decade because he had worked in various agencies. They said they were willing to remove the claim.
2. The Extra Factory said they supplied extras to some major production companies and were willing to remove the claim and logos.
3. The Extra Factory stated everyone who appeared on their website must have attended their free test. They stated they could not provide us with contracts for the models and extras because those had all been destroyed in a fire.
4. The Extra Factory said they traded as the Global Marketing Company and were willing to remove the claim.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA considered consumers would read the claim "we have been providing Film and Television Extras for well over a decade" to mean that the Extra Factory had been in business for over ten years. We understood the website was created in November 2009. Whilst we noted the owner of Global Marketing Company stated he had worked in various agencies for over a decade, we considered the ad implied that the Extra Factory had been securing work for extras for over ten years, rather than making a claim concerning the experience of one individual within the company. We therefore concluded the ad was misleading.
On this point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 3.11 (Exaggeration).
2. Upheld
We noted the claim stated Extra Factory had provided work for BBC productions but understood from the complainant that the BBC only used agents on their recommended list and the Extra Factory were not on that list. Whilst we noted that the Extra Factory said they supplied extras to some major production companies, such as BBC, Granada and Sky, because we had not seen evidence to demonstrate that, we concluded that the ad was misleading.
On this point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation).
3. Upheld
We noted that the complainant had forwarded us correspondence from someone who had applied to join the Extra Factory and was told they had to attend a compulsory shoot, where they were then asked to pay for a portfolio of photographs. We noted the Extra Factory said they placed all who attended their free test on the website; however, because we had seen no evidence to demonstrate that, we concluded that the ad was misleading.
On this point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), and 20.2 (Employment, homework schemes and business opportunities).
4. Upheld
We considered consumers would read the claim "Part of the Global Marketing Company" to imply that the Extra Factory was a member of a larger, worldwide organisation. We acknowledged they stated they used the Global Marketing Company as their trading name. Because we considered the ad implied the Extra Factory was part of a larger organisation and that was not the case, we concluded that the ad was misleading.
On this point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 3.11 (Exaggeration).
Action
The ad must not appear again. We told Extra Factory not to exaggerate their experience as a company and not to imply they supplied people to productions companies if they did not have evidence to support that. We also told Extra Factory to make clear if applicants must have a portfolio of photographs before signing as an extra and not to imply they were part of a wider organisation if that was not the case.
