Modelling agency warning (First Step Modelling / Distinctive Model Advice)

As mentioned in my earlier post, I submitted a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority on First Step Modelling. Below is a brief summary of what has happened since then - I have to summarise the responses between myself and the ASA, as it is already a lengthy post, but I welcome any requests for further information.

1. 13 Oct 2017 - Complaint submitted to the ASA
Here is a brief summary of the complaint:
a) False information on their business: FSM said they are a registered company and operated by South West Studios. The fact is that FSM is not registered with Companies House and SW Studios is a company that dissolved in 2012.
b) Role of FSM is confusing - although they claim not to be a modelling agency, in their Who We Are section, they had a subsection on the role of a modelling agency which is discussed at length.
c) Their claims of being the "UK Leading Modelling Platform" and "helped thousands of aspiring models launch their careers to become a model" are unsubstantiated.
d) They offer photoshoot services (called "portfolio services") yet they use stock images on their web site instead of their own, which could mislead the public regarding the quality of the photoshoot services they offer.

"Complaint received conformation" and "ASA - Complaint Acknowledgement" e-mails were received on the same day.

2. 24 October 2017 - First response from ASA to understand any competitive interest in the outcome of my complaint; if not a competitor, the ASA wanted to understand whether there was any particular experience or interest that had led to my belief that the claim was misleading. I had until 27 October to respond.

Easy enough to respond: not a competitor, and have had direct customer experience with First Step Modelling where they acted as a modelling agency (promising me a job) however saying I needed to purchase their porfolio service in order to apply for the job. I also provided a link to the Mirror investigation of FSM which mirrored my experience.

ASA then responded on 27 October thanking me for the extra information. They also said that the "leading claim" has been removed from the web site so they will not be pursuing this.

3. 18 December 2017 - ASA updated me on the letter they are writing to FSM

ASA responded saying they have a policy which limits them to investigate a maximum of three points in most cases. They said they have written to South West Studios trading as FSM with regards to the following three points:
1. “UK LEADING MODELLING PLATFORM”
2. “First Step Modelling has helped thousands of aspiring models launch their careers to
become a model”; and
3. “THE ROLE OF A MODEL AGENCY”
Investigated under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7
(Substantiation) and 3.33 (Comparisons with identifiable competitors).

4. 19 December 2017 - My response to ASA regarding First Step Modelling / South West Studios / Venus London

I asked ASA how they acquired the information that the organisation is South West Studios trading as FSM, and repeated what I had told them in my original complaint: that SW Studios dissolved in 2012. I stressed that this is important because false information could mean that a customer who had been missold a product would not be able to sue a business that is legally/technically non-existent.

I also told them that Venus London was the actual organisation operating behind the scenes, and re-sent the link to the Mirror article.

5. 2 January 2018 - ASA responds to me + response from FSM to ASA

ASA said they have received a response from FSM. FSM confirmed they are Venus London trading as South West London. Their web site information is now consistent with Companies House.

FSM provided ASA with assurance that they would amend their website, including removing the disputed claims, so that their website is made sufficiently clear that they were offering a photography service and not misleadingly suggest that they were a modelling agency. Moving forward, FSM provided their assurance that they would make all the necessary changes.

ASA confirmed that these claims have been removed, but they had advised the advertiser that further changes might be needed.

Due to FSM’s assurances, ASA decided that the complaint will be resolved without referring the matter to the ASA Council, and they will be consequently closing the file without holding a formal investigation. In a formal investigation, if the ASA Council decides that an ad is in breach of the Code, the advertisers are told to withdraw or amend it. Because Venus London had already assured them that they will make amendments, they believed there is little to be gained from continuing with a formal investigation, which would achieve that same outcome.

ASA said if I still wasn't satisfied with the changes FSM made after two weeks, I will need to resubmit the complaint.

6. 4 Jan 2018 - My response to ASA regarding the use of stock images instead of the company's own photos, despite offering photography services

I brought up the point of using stock images again to the ASA as I believed it would mislead the public regarding the quality of FSM's photoshoot services if they use stock images on their web site (I would know from personal experience!).

They responded four days later saying they had asked FSM that they remove the stock image on their porfolio service page and ensured that their advertising did not misleadingly suggest that any stock images were photographs they had personally taken.

7. So what's the outcome? + Thoughts on the ASA

To check whether any changes have been made due to the ASA complaint, I had a look at FSM's web site today with regards to the 5 points I initially raised:
a. Business information - this has been rectified to correctly say they are Venus London

b. Role of FSM confusing (are they a modelling agency?) - the subsection on the role of the modelling agency has been removed, and they have made it clear on their page that they are not a modelling agency, but a model support agency

c. Unsubstantiated claims of being "leading UK Leading Modelling Platform" and "helped thousands of aspiring models launch their careers to become a model" - this has been changed to "First Step Modelling Platform" and "With years experience within the industry First Step Modelling has helped aspiring models launch their careers."

d. Stock images used on their web site which could mislead customers regarding the quality of their photoshoot services - not much change here!! not even in their portfolio service section.

So thoughts on ASA.... personally waiting two months for a response is a bit long, but if this length of time is to be expected, then it's all the more important for us to report misleading advertisements as soon as possible. Overall, I felt they achieved most of the outcomes I felt was important. However I was disappointed that they failed to catch on that the business information was incorrect (even though it was clearly stated in the complaint) and still referred to FSM as SW Studios. I was however pleased that they took onboard feedback, although their advice to FSM on the stock images had no impact.

I think their policy on focusing their investigation on three points could be problematic. This policy would be great as a guideline, however, each case should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. In addition, I find it worrying that should the complainer be dissatisfied with the advertiser's changes (or lack of), they will need to re-submit the complaint.... and potentially wait another two months before getting a response from the ASA! I believe ASA should NOT rely only on assurances from the advertiser. They themselves should inspect whether the advertiser had fulfilled what they had promised, instead of being content with assurances and then leaving it to the complainer to assess and potentially re-submit the complaint.

---

The intention on this post is to update on the ASA complaint, but also to helpfully (I hope!) inform those who are considering submitting a complaint with the ASA regarding similar cases.

Cornucopia wrote: »

Well done for pursuing this with the ASA. The thing about the UK's regulators is that they may not be particularly great, but they are the only ones we have. So any complaint goes to them or not at all.

There is a persistent problem that I have seen across various regulators including the ASA that where there is the possibility of choosing between a badly run company and a fraudulent one, they go out of their way to go with the former, despite good evidence for the latter.

In the case of these "modelling support agencies" there is also the question of whether (a) the service is ever necessary (i.e. would it ever be chosen by someone apprised of all the facts), and (b) whether all/most of their "customers" are only customers because they have been deceived.

I think we can probably judge the answer to (a) as yes, based on adverse comments from industry experts, and (b) as unknown, although it is possibly something that the ASA could have taken a view on.

I see what you mean..... I certainly agree that it's better to have the ASA vs not having any regulator at all, even if they can be "toothless" as Computersaysno described.

I like the idea of making life difficult for scammers even if it's almost impossible to get them penalised in some way by regulators.

Admittedly, this is not the best strategy in the world, but i hate the thought of scammers continuing their scams without any objection / intervention. Even if it's just them feeling panicky receiving communications from a regulator and then making the necessary changes, I think that's better than nothing/.

It is an interesting phenomenon how some scammers seem to appear to be sensitive to public perception. I hope the internet will continue to be a platform where everyone can feel empowered to say the truth of their experiences. Clearly idealistic - what with fake reviews and all - but way better than suffering in silence / helplessness.