|
|
eModel.com Fraud Investigation ReportIntroduction "The whole thing, fundamentally, from beginning to end, is a scam." — Bill Mitchell, President, Greater Los Angeles Better Business Bureau The internet is a powerful medium which allows freedom of expression and, at the same time, privacy. You can post your opinions online, anonymously, say what you want about virtually anything. But despite the privacy, there are some things you cannot hide. Computer hackers have been traced and tracked after sending viruses half way around the world. It is possible to detect the place from where it all started, all the way from the country, to the city, to the computer. In its fraud investigation online, modeling scams.com investigated public forum posts about emodel.com, to see if the claims of emodel.com fraud online were true. One thread about emodel.com included public criticism of the company, and then it was resisted with the following post. From: Mari CommentsI decided to allow eModel to promote me on the web- I since have gotten six bookings doing promotional work. Affinity took a good look at me on the website and wants to negotiate a signing. The work for Vibe and Tropicana certainly helped pay the bill. This glowing testimonial sounds great. But if you do a reverse lookup of the IP number, in this case 65.115.173.130, you will see the address of the person who sent the message. Copy that number and then follow this link: Type in the number, and it says: Qwest Communications (NETBLK-NET-QWEST-BLKS-4) EMODEL (NETBLK-09041-65-115-173-128) Next click on the emodel link. It gives the physical address for the computer address: EMODEL (NETBLK-09041-65-115-173-128) 7001 LAKE ELLENOR DRIVE ORLANDO, FL 32809 US 7001 Lake Ellenor Drive is the physical address of the corporate headquarters of emodel.com. The same thread received another forum post by a different poster name, once again a glowing testimonial from a satisfied customer on Friday, January 25, 2002, just after 5 PM. eModel and meFrom: Aerin F. CommentsNot only did I get a part in Black Night through the exposure I got from eModel, but I also went on and did three episodes on Going to Califorina and three international Heineken commercials. How's that for "Dont' Do It" bs? Look at the ("Remote Name") number for both posts. They are one and the same. Both posts came from 65.115.173.130. The same computer which posted as "Mari" posted as "Aerin F." In public forums online different people have complained about posts praising emodel.com. After public criticism, there were numerous instances where emodel is praised, the number itself looking suspicious. These "testimonies" were met with more complaints about emodel.com, that they were made not by satisfied customers, but instead fraudulently by emodel.com staff. Others who did not say that asked: "How do we know you are not working for emodel.com?" Index | Mari | Aerin [Original Content Pages] Since web pages disappear or get renamed suddenly and without notice, Modeling Scams.com took the liberty of making screen captures of the public forum posts: Index | Mari | Aerin But there is more. Note the date and Remote Name for this post in the same forum: here's my experienceFrom: Carrie CommentsI sought promotion from Emodel. I was on the website for a few months before I was noticed by VIP Talent and IMI Talent. I now have had a few bookings that have paid great. Am I glad to have signed up? Duh. In the same forum the question was asked: "Maybe the "model type" get the jobs, and the non-model types get scammed??? Anyone have any advice or experience??? Thanks." Here's another post from the emodel.com corporate headquarters. Re: Q for Laura and MaxannFrom: Kallie CommentsI'm in good shape pretty fit. Not model tall at all. The work I'm getting is print and promotional bookings. Each time the identity of the poster is different but the remote name is the same. In three cases a unique email address was given, in one case no email address was provided, but they all originated from the corporate headquarters of the same company: emodel.com. "What they're doing isn't right. They're telling people who have no chance of being models to put their pictures up. I guarantee you, the money those people are paying is more than most of them will ever make in their lifetime modeling." — Bill Ford, Ford Models, est. 1946 emodel.com was in the news, and the subject of some hard-hitting investigative journalism by New Times Broward-Palm Beach. This newspaper in Florida published an article on September 6, 2001, entitled Hustling for Models, “An e-caveat for beautiful people trying to find employment via the Internet.” The damning exposé by Wyatt Olson is largely successful based on the testimony of Ivette Mendive, a 33-year-old former employee at emodel.com. It offers an insider’s account into how the firm operates to lure women into their web. Ivette Mendive became so sick of the company, she quit. And not only did she quit, Ivette called the same people she had recruited, and advised them to abandon emodel.com. Another former emodel.com scout, who worked at the company for a month, wrote a very long and detailed account of how emodel conducted its business, and then offered the following apology:
Usenet offers stories to back up the account of the recruiting practices, where women as short as 5'6" and even 5'1" were the target of emodel.com. The Better Business Bureau of the Southland in California has a file on emodel.com.
Similar complaints have been filed online at the Rip-off Report, where one person says pictures were taken and money stolen by emodel.com (Jan 18, 2002), and another gives an inside story after being a modeling scout for emodel.com (December 12, 2001). Other internet boards offer testimonies of people who were targeted but did not join their program. On October 10, 2001, Crystal posted the following message:
For more information, you can visit the Orlando office of the Better Business Bureau, and search their file for emodel. (Click the link to Check Out a Company). Also, there is a website with discussion boards which include many posts about emodel.com. These are testimonies of people who paid emodel or worked for emodel. Some of the stories are horrendous. People are calling for legal action and want a TV documentary to investigate emodel.com and shut them down. On January 29, 2002, emodel.com posted a notice on monster.com looking for an attorney. One attorney has asked for information to file a lawsuit if not a class action lawsuit against emodel.com. One guild plans to ask the Attorney General of Florida to investigate emodel.com. There have been so many complaints. Why? The deception is reported to be happening at every level: aspiring models, modeling scouts, and modeling photographers.
Modeling Scouts One of the new modeling scouts made the following complaint and observation:
But not everyone whom emodel tries to hire signs up. One frustrated and horrified man believes emodel is “one of the biggest scams of the century.” He wrote the following message on December 8, 2001:
It almost looks as if emodel tries to get scouts to pay for the privilege of recruiting models. When the Better Business Bureau got wind of this, they called them on it, and emodel, at least in one place, stopped doing it. But the BBB also asked about other issues, and emodel did not respond. It is still not clear if emodel has reverted to the practices before challenged by the BBB, since they appeared to be ignoring them. The same person who felt emodel is one of the scams of the century, continued:
Many people allege an emodel scam targets the aspiring models, while others believe it is more focused on the modeling scouts. One model scout, who had worked for emodel for a few months, summarized it this way:
If this is true, emodel is taking lots of people for a ride. They are getting people to work for them for free. Further, these people who work for them for free are getting others to sign up for about $500 a person. One former scout said there was a quota: if the new scouts did not recruit 10 models, they would not be hired. Let us say one new scout recruited 9 models. Each model pays $500, for a total of $4,500. Since the scout did not make the quota, he or she must leave, but emodel still has the models recruited. They pocket $4,500; the scout gets nothing; and the models will continue to pay emodel $20 every month. Of course, it is even worse if the scouts paid for their training. Some paid $395. If they did not make the quota, they would have worked for nothing and emodel would be $395 ahead for each scout who did not make the quota, on top of up to $4,500 they would get for the models who were recruited. So what this ultimately shows is how models and scouts can take large risks and lose money, while emodel can take no risks and make large profits. There really is not a lot of work emodel has to do. Uploading a few pictures onto a website does not cost emodel a lot of money. You could probably do it in less than 5 minutes. The $20 each month charged aspiring models for the "maintenance" fee could very well be money for nothing. Why aren't the models charged only when they require maintenance? If their pictures are not changed or updated, there is no maintenance. If there is no maintenance, they pay $20 each month for nothing. Some webhosting companies charge about $20 for the setup fee of a personal website. Paying $20 every month is like paying for the setup fee every single month when the website is already set up. It makes no sense. If you are paying someone to upload one picture a month, and it takes them 1 minute, but it still costs you $20, it is like you are paying them at the rate of $1,200/hour. To upload a picture. But the obvious benefit to emodel is a revenue stream. Consistent income. A reliable source of money. If there were 10,000 aspiring models listed on emodel.com, and each of them pays $20/month, but none of them needed maintenance, they would be giving emodel.com $200,000 every month for doing absolutely nothing. That would be $1,000,000 every five months. (One television news website reported they have 25,000 models in their database, and it is not known how many if any models require maintenance each month.) On the issue of a money-back guarantee, there isn't one. There is a guarantee, and it sounds like a money-back guarantee, but it isn't a money-back guarantee. If you don't get anyone beating a path to your door, i.e., contacting you after you sign up with emodel.com, within a certain period of time, apparently they will let you have your picture in their database for free.
This emodel "guarantee" spawned sarcastic comments from at least a few people, including Dieter, who wrote:
Regarding the association of Kim Alexis with emodel, her name is obviously used or invoked to lend credibility to the outfit. Her face has appeared prominently on emodel.com. She was, after all, a supermodel, and she is a household name. What better advertising could you get than that?
There are different references to Kim Alexis online in the context of emodel. On one website it sounded as if she did an infomercial for emodel. In which case it seems emodel paid her for the use of her name in their advertising. emodel has shown a keen interest in name dropping, apparently using supermodels in its video presentation; saying it is affiliated with big-name modeling agencies; and plastering pictures of a supermodel on magazine covers on its main website page. The following clip was posted on an internet board after it was found on a BBB website. It is very significant.
That makes it sound as if the original purpose of hiring Kim Alexis was so she would be the spokesmodel. In other words, it very much looks as if Kim Alexis became involved with emodel.com because she was going to get paid; and it also looks as if emodel.com decided not to run the informercial because it would look suspicious, if she was also on the Board of Directors. Or did emodel decide they could make better use of Kim Alexis as a member of the board than as a spokesmodel? It would accomplish the same thing, wouldn't it? Promote the company, right? But which role would have a greater impact? Kim Alexis as spokesmodel -- or Kim Alexis as supermodel on the Board of Directors? Take a wild guess. Can you appoint someone to be on your Board of Directors if they are being paid to be the spokesmodel? The whole association of Kim Alexis with emodel.com is questionable. It raises serious issues relating to ethics and conflict of interest. Was Kim Alexis paid by emodel.com to make it look as if she was behind the company, actively involved in its strategic planning, a leader? Would this not result in misleading advertising and get lots and lots of aspiring models to pay for membership at emodel.com? Did emodel.com try to milk her reputation to recruit members? This point about whether Kim Alexis is being paid and or was paid to represent emodel is still not perfectly clear, and in any case, various people are waiting for Kim Alexis to speak out and publically address the charges made against emodel.com. From the emodel.com website it looks as if Kim Alexis is on the board. This implies she is involved in the direction of the company. But others are saying Kim Alexis is paid by emodel.com to be their spokesperson. One person said:
Is that not name dropping and misrepresentation? It is certainly possible and logical that if a company scams scouts and aspiring models, it could have tricked Kim Alexis. It is hard to believe she would get involved with a company knowing full well it was involved in deception and misrepresentation and fraud -- unless she is being paid a huge amount of money to represent emodel.com. If she is being paid, the full amount has not been made public. One poster made the following comment:
Another report suggested Kim Alexis attended a convention for emodel... presumably either as a member of the board... or a spokesmodel... maybe even both? At the time of writing, the emodel.com website lists Kim Alexis on its page entitled, "eModel's Officers and Directors." That page was reached after clicking on a graphic link entitled "Board of Directors." On the website emodelfranchise.com, at the time of writing their faq is a little more explicit. It says:
The emodel.com page noted beside her picture she has been a spokesperson for other companies, but it does not say she is a spokesperson for emodel.com. "She has served as the spokesperson for Melba Toast, Alpine Lace and Citrimax." Is Kim Alexis modeling for emodel.com? Is she the spokesmodel? Is she on the board of directors? There are other questions being raised about misrepresentation by emodel.com. Perhaps for the first time, a major newspaper has started to take a closer look at emodel.com. The New York Post published an article entitled "Mannequin Mess" by Lauren Barack on January 26, 2002.
In response to one person's denial that emodel is a scam, another person who had actually made phone calls to verify emodel's claims asked:
Jill Farmer of Fox 2 News, KTVI, in St. Louis, Missouri, investigated emodel and tried to set up an on-camera interview. But emodel “cancelled at the last minute.” Nevertheless, the featured report was broadcast on November 26, 2001. Once again, emodel claimed they worked with a talent agency, in this case, Talent Plus. Sharon Tucci, the owner of the prestigious modeling agency, was asked whether or not they worked with emodel:
A television station arranged an undercover investigation to check out emodel.com in April 2001. The Houston office of the Better Business Bureau says it participated:
There are many more public comments and complaints about emodel.com, including the following notes from one Better Business Bureau website:
There is a statistic floating around regarding the effectiveness of emodel. emodel.com told a television station "internal research shows 84% of customers are contacted by a modeling agency or commercial client about possible work." Now, based on the chronic problems emodel has shown regarding honesty, after numerous complaints, who in their right mind would believe this number? Can it be independently verified? If it cannot, why would you believe it? The number of people supposedly contacted is virtually irrelevant. There is something much more important. The stated number begs the question, How many customers are contacted by a modeling agency or commercial client and get work? If you were a scouting company and the numbers were high, wouldn't this statistic be the most important piece of information? Wouldn't it be the centerpiece of your marketing campaign? It should be the focal point of anyone's personal investigation before signing up with emodel.com. The definition of success is surely not the number of calls anyone gets, but the number of jobs, because that is where the money is. You don't get any money just from being contacted. Back to that 84% statistic. It seems more than slightly ominous that the exact same number comes up for a different emodel.com situation. fransol.com reported the story of an emodel competition in Orlando, Florida, where “84 percent of the models who competed received callbacks from modeling agencies and industry executives who were in attendance.” Was the number emodel gave to the television station accidentally the number for one competition (750 contestants), and not the number for all emodel.com members (30,000)? Or is the number correct for both? If the number is correct for both, they seem to be saying 25,200 emodel.com members are contacted by a modeling agency or commercial client. That is a lot of people, isn't it? It is difficult to believe, and because it requires a significant stretch of the imagination, emodel.com should back it up with proof. Do they? Have the numbers been independently audited? The actual modeling competition mentioned above in a press release by Franchise Solutions (fransol.com) is also worth a closer look. There were 750 contestants who competed for the "coveted title" of "Spokesmodel of the Year." Those terms seem to imply there is some sort of prestige attached to the competition and resulting work. You might want to think they were talking about a Ford Model competition, a chance to break into a modeling career. After all the winner was going to represent a line of cosmetics. But wait a minute. On closer inspection, it turns out the line of cosmetics is not L'Oreal, Clinique, Estee Lauder, Laura Mercier, or anything remotely established, respectable, or prestigious. The makeup line is called Models Only. Guess who owns Models Only? That's right, emodel.com. The press release named the winners of the competition and said they won the "prestigious spokesmodel titles." Were the contestants aware the competition was for emodel, i.e., in-house, and not for a famous brand? How prestigious could they be? In any event, the fransol.com promotion looks misleading, because there is nothing prestigious about Models Only makeup. The website was trying to help emodel.com sell franchises, getting people to pay $30,000 for a small business opportunity. (emodel.com gets $30,000 for every new franchise.) It would be very simple and easy to hold a beauty contest to recruit models. You could say in your advertising the winner would represent a line of cosmetics. The ad campaign would probably lead to many models being recruited, paying, and becoming members of emodel.com. A former modeling scout for emodel.com reported modelsonly.com was holding a search for a spokesmodel, and announced they were using emodel.com to help them:
"Naturally turned?" Naturally turned!? Can you believe that? The aspiring models were evidently misled, because emodel did not explain they owned ModelsOnly. If they had explained this, and been up front, would all the aspiring models have paid $500 to enter the "fake" contest? Was the modelsonly company created by emodel.com to rake in 750 new members? The spokesmodel contest had 750 participants, all of whom had to pay the membership fees ($500), which would give emodel a total of $375,000. Is that number a large enough incentive to create a new business like modelsonly? Could emodel.com not hold regular spokesmodel contests and generate $375,000 more from them each year? There was a modeling competition turned into a multiple-episode TV program in Canada called "Supermodels." The winner of the beauty contest won a position to represent a prestigious cosmetics brand with international appeal and recognition. "Thousands of hopefuls... Eight episodes... One dream," read the slogan. "Supermodels" was a Ford Models competition in association with L'Oreal Paris broadcast on GlobalTV. Ford Models chose the winner and the winner landed a modeling contract to represent the cosmetics line of L'Oreal Paris. This is very different from emodel.com holding a contest with the winner representing emodel.com, I mean, Models Only. Suzanne Ellis reported the story for Canada.com on November 19, 2001:
After she won the competition, Raquel was flown to Paris. There she toured the city with a L'Oreal makeup artist; visited L'Oreal headquarters; and was styled by a L'Oreal photographer for a professional photo shoot. The pictures will appear in a Canadian ad campaign. That is a real modeling competition. Ford Models is a legitimate company. L'Oreal Paris is a prestigious brand. Vital StatisticsAnother vital statistic floating around is 86%. A man who used to work for emodel made the following revelation:
Do 86% of aspiring models get a gig? Supermodelsemodel.com claimed supermodels use emodel's services. As proof of this, they show prospective clients the supermodels on their website. It is part of the company website tour during their marketing presentations. Aspiring models are shown the web pages of the supermodels and their vital statistics before being asked to sign with emodel.
In her article, Cashing in On Dreams of Glamour, Joanne Kimberlin wrote about the emodel presentation and sales pitch to a group of aspiring models at one of their meetings at emodel's Norfolk, Virginia franchise. Mars was the 23-year-old emodel "talent executive."
It was not only the emodel talent executive, but also the emodel franchise owner who said supermodels were using emodel.com: "Even they can always use more work." Which supermodels could use more work? The list included Tyra Banks and Rebecca Romijn-Stamos. Tyra and Rebecca are both represented by the prestigious modeling agency, IMG Models, in New York. Nadine Johnson, the public relations representative for IMG Models, was informed of the way emodel.com was using the supermodels for promotion.
But the featured supermodels on emodel's web went much further and far beyond just Tyra Banks and Rebecca Romijn-Stamos. It included: Linda Evangelista An emodel.com senior vice president told reporter Joanne Kimberlin the emodel franchise owner must have made a "mistake." She said the supermodel pictures and information was not on emodel's website, it was an outside link. Then she said the link had been removed. However, modelingscams.com found the supermodel pictures on an emodel website more than a month after the senior vice president said a link had been removed (see above list). There is no indication the supermodels were ever on another site, or that there ever was just a link. emodel used a numerical address for the pictures (161.58.188.58). This allowed them to have a website without their company name. Website addresses are typically in letters (or letters and numbers), but they can also be set up in numbers only. When 161.58.188.58 was visited by modelingscams.com, the first thing that came up was a web page entitled, "Welcome to emodel.com."
Then the exact same flash animation intro seen on emodel.com started. Someone who heard and accepted the line about supermodels using emodel had posted in an internet forum the web addresses emodel used to present supermodels, and these all started with 161.58.188.58. e.g., 161.58.188.58/viewmodels/supermodels/claudia.htm Six of the entire list were checked, and each page showed a picture of a supermodel, her vital statistics, and the agency which represented her. e.g., Claudia Schiffer Measurements: 35.5-24.5-35.5 The use of supermodels is corroborated by a woman who publically posted her experience on October 4, 2001, in an internet forum. She was scouted by emodel.com, and said the same thing: emodel.com used pictures of supermodels as part of its commercial presentation. But first there was an evaluation.
The interesting thing about the story was the woman who told it said she worked in travel sales. There she was, a saleswoman by trade, receiving a sales pitch. "I work in travel sales and you can’t sell to a salesman," she said. She felt their selling techniques were illegal once she checked and found out emodel was not affiliated with the supermodels with whom they claimed to be affiliated. |
