Does Kids.com Just Want Your New Parents’ Money? A Cautionary Tale
Jul 24 '03 (Updated Sep 13 '05)
The Bottom Line To avoid the possibility of being hosed, parents should consider avoiding child modeling agencies in general. Buy a video camera instead.
A Cautionary Tale About Child Modeling Scams or Just Bad Business Practices
”Your baby looks just like Winston Churchill” is not a comment most new parents care to hear about their offspring. And, mostly, people are polite enough to spew all kinds of self esteem builders at new parents who are probably sleep deprived, overwhelmed, and just plain tired. ”He/she is so cute, He/she has your eyes,” sounds immeasurably better than “What a mewling mass of protoplasm, spit up, and poop you have there. You must be so proud.”
Consequently new parents are ripe for possibly the world’s best scam: baby modeling. As a parent you are justifiably proud of your genes and probably think your baby is as cute as anyone else’s out there. You might even become one of the deranged people who document every second of your genetic bounty’s existence ad nauseam or you could just be very tired and plan to get around to all that when the kid gets out of college. He/she will receive a baby photo from the hospital, a clip of hair, and a nice parting gift as you and your spouse head to retirement.
Now, some parents actually believe modeling is a way to build up a child’s self esteem, which is a curious thought since it’s probably one of the most controversial industries known to man. Before considering anything of this nature, be sure to thoroughly investigate the agency and never, ever, pay for anything up-front. I can only offer this cautionary tale about our experience with a child modeling agency and let other parents know that P.T. Barnum was right. Suckers are born, not made.
When E. hit the four or sixth month stage, we got a letter in the mail from Kids.com that stated “Your child has come to our attention.” I immediately wanted to check the local sex offender registry at the police station until I noted that the letter was from a child modeling agency. I should have went straight to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) or thrown the letter in the trash.
Kids.com operates a web site, www.justourkids.com, and maintains offices in five states in the U.S. Appearances were that they were more than legitimate. The site indicates what they do along the following business model: They promise to search, identify and prequalify children as candidates for advertising work. They maintain a database of children accessible to the industry and broken down by categories. They have a booking staff to coach, advise, and instruct parents about assignments.
The site does not offer any e-commerce capability or anything like that. It is a database of children's photos reportedly there for talent scouts and others to research available children for modeling assignments. It also serves as a propaganda machine to lure in new parents into thinking the company is offering a unique service.
In short, Kids.com promises to be a conduit to the modeling business for parents who do not have the time to do all the research and legwork on their own. There was no charge for an interview session and both my wife and I thought it might be worth looking into for some reason. We were high on “your baby’s so cute” buzz, sleep deprived, and under caffeinated. E. was happily entering the baby phase where she was, in fact, so damn cute it was hard to resist photographing her daily.
We made an appointment to see Kids.com staff thinking maybe we could parlay some money into E’s college fund or something along those lines. We were instructed to dress our child appropriately and bring some sample photos. Entering Kids.com’s office in suburban Fairfield, New Jersey, we noted a bunch of children’s magazine covers on the wall from “clients,” and a number of other couples with their genetic material in tow. Everything looked legitimate, though at least one of the children present was definitely “handsome” in much the same way someone might describe Golda Meier.
We met with Peter, who sat us down and immediately questioned us about our desire to be successful in this field. “Were we prepared to be available for E’s career opportunities?” [The firm can call on short notice and ask mothers/fathers be available to escort their little Winston Churchill on a prospective modeling call.]
Peter looked at photos we provided of E and picked one of her Robert DiNiro like poses. “This is it. She looks like she’ll take no shit here.” He then talked about how “personality” was the thing he looked for in a child, the thing that sets them apart from others and gets them noticed. He showed us a photo book of successful clients. He talked about a local 11-year old boy with big ears currently appearing in a car commercial and raking in the college fund money.
The sell. Peter was selling the company’s services aggressively as he talked to us, praising E, and probing our motivation for being there. [It was a high pressure sales push reminiscent of that of an infamous electronic store chain that went out of business a number of years ago.]
Peter challenged us on a few points (an evaluation of six or so questions) about our situation. He spoke very fast and boasted numerous times about how exclusive they were and how many contacts they provided. They were the best!!
“Are you interested?” We nodded. “Are you motivated?” We nodded. He asked us a series of questions to see just how qualified we were for their services. We passed them all. We were special.
He said the company had two plans: a basic contract where the parent does all the legwork contacting agencies, negotiating rates, etc., and Kids.com posts the photo and serves as a billing contact only. The premium contract (recommended) is where Kids.com does all that. We went for them doing the legwork. Suckers.
Kids.com showed us a 5-year contract with a number of requirements and a fee. First, we had to fork over $595.00 for the premium services contract. “That won’t break you, will it?” Peter indicated that the money would be tax deductible once E got a modeling job.
We would have to have E professionally photographed so a suitable picture could be posted and categorized on their web site. Twice a year we were to take E to an associated photographer to update her shots. For a fee of $20.00 a sitting, we could select any photos we wanted to be posted on their site. We would have the option to purchase specific photos from the photographer separately.
All we had to do was be available. E was just being cute. I waffled and out came my credit card.
As we were leaving I said to my wife “I think we got hosed. Did we just get hosed?”
My wife dutifully called a photographer that Kids.com recommended and got no response. A call back to Kids.com was less than helpful as the person had little knowledge of geography and was trying to send us everywhere else for a photo. Finally, my wife prompted her enough to give us a name in our area and we were able to get an appointment for E a few weeks later. The photo shoot went well and we wound up purchasing a portrait and some wallet photos of E.
The photographer sent in the file after the shoot. Afterwards, we periodically checked the site to see if E’s portrait showed up. It didn’t. Further conversations with the photographer we had become friendly with revealed that we were not the only parents having problems with Kids.com and second thoughts about their "services." The photographer also said that she was ending her association with them.
Hosing 101?
My wife sent a letter to the Vice President of Kids.com (registered mail, return receipt requested) complaining about the service and asking for our money back. She also added that if we did not hear from Kids.com within the next week, we would be forced to take further action. The VP, Don, called the next day. The conversation grew lengthy and the VP alternatively blamed the photographer and us for the delay in posting E’s photo. They never received the photo files. The photo was bad. She didn’t look good. Her hair was messed up. She was dressed only in a diaper (actually, it was a diaper cover).
My wife tripped him up on two points in particular: (a) they had no in-house process for monitoring their photographers’ performance and (b) they had no in-house timetable or procedure for monitoring file posting to the web. If we hadn’t contacted them or monitored the web site, nothing would have been done.
He protested and then promised that he would send a letter out to us confirming the conversation and credit our account for the $595.00.
There ‘Oughta’ Be A Law
We later filed a complaint with the Better Business Bureau (BBB) here in NJ and considered filing another with the FTC. We never heard back from the BBB and I fully expected never to see the money again unless monkeys flew out my ass in the near future, or the site changed its name to www.parentsaresuckers.com in its next reorganization.
No Shit, Really!
On the afternoon of 7/28/03, a curious physical phenomena overtook my body after my wife called me at work and mentioned that Kids.com did, indeed, credit us for the $595.00 charge. In a surprisingly painless occurrence, a monkey did fly out of my ass with a big Whoosh. It messed up my desk a bit and split my pants, but I was otherwise unharmed.
This turn of events from the seemingly uncooperative folks at Kids.com does not change my opinion of this company and their sales and service practices. I think they mislead people into believing that their child is the next big thing in child modeling circles when the truth is that child modeling is not even that big an industry. Chances of a major success are slim to none for the vast majority of children they sign up. Their high pressure sales tactics are reminiscent of the kind of sales pitch one encounters from auto dealers and appliance salesmen. They play on your emotional attachment to your child. Charging upfront fees is not the industry standard either.
Previous to my experience, I've not seen any reports on the Web of other parents getting their money back, and believe me, I looked them all up before I wrote this epinion a week ago.
How this professional turn of events from Kids.com took place I’m not so sure. Was it our complaint to the BBB? [Probably not, as the BBB has Kids.com rated satisfactory. The BBB is a member organization that caters to businesses more than the consumer in addressing customer complaints.]
Or, more likely, this whole episode is just further proof that it does not pay to argue with my wife!
Still, my advice to any parent looking into child modeling for their offspring and/or considering signing with Kids.com is to "think again." Do some further research at the Web sites dedicated to consumer scams and such before considering it. Never ever put money out upfront. True modeling agencies do not require you to pay upfront.
Bottomline: Ask yourself whether paying $595.00 for a Web site listing for your child (essentially what you are paying for) with no other services attached is worth it to you.
In my opinion, that money is better spent on a digital or video camera to record your own highlights of your little Winston Churchill or Golda Meier. Or as a start-up contribution to the little one's college fund.
More information about possible modeling scams and the murky business practices of the industry can be found at www.ripoffreport.com and www.easybackgroundcheck.com, among other sites. Parenting bulletin boards can have good information as well. Many of these sites contain anecdotal evidence only so the reader(s) should be prepared to read critically and judge for themselves about the veracity of the material.
Fact or Fiction
Reportedly, Kids.com was formerly known as National Talent Associates (at one time, www.ntakids.com defaulted to www.justourkids.com). NTA had been cited or taken to court by the government a number of times for deceptive sales practices.
According to the United States Department of Justice web site, the company (NTA) has been found liable for over 20,000 violations of an FTC order in a 1998 trial (see www.usdoj.gov/civil/ocl/monograph/ftca.htm). The FTC has actions against them dating back to 1974.
A permanent injunction was filed against the company (NTA) in NJ (see http://www3.ftc.gov/os/caselist/d8960.htm, http://www3.ftc.gov/opa/1999/05/talent4.htm, and
http://www3.ftc.gov/opa/1996/06/talent.htm ).
“Dateline,” the NBC show did an investigative report on the company (NTA) as far back as April, 1997.
Kids.com is in the same business as NTA was and has the same office address in NJ that NTA once did. Kids.com denies any association with NTA but acknowledges buying assets from them and including former NTA employees in the their company.
Note: Kids.com at www.justourkids.com is not to be confused with www.kids.com, a children’s web site.
2004 Update
Justourkids.com now describes themselves as a "multi-service personal management firm" on their Web site. They were recently the subject of a media investigation in Minnesota and a class action suit was filed against them. That lawsuit was ultimately dismissed when the judge ruled there was insufficient evidence to proceed with the suit (according to the justourkids.com site). The site currently contains a section defending itself regarding the recent suit and allegations about its business practices.
The Philadelphia Inquirer ran a disputed story about them in February 2004 See the link below:
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/states/new_jersey/7915313.htm?1c
Whatever the outcome of suits and investigations, Kids.com remains a company with controversy attached to it.
My Advice
For those parents considering using their services after receiving a "Your child has come to our attention" letter (the company buys mailing lists of new births recorded at local hospitals), I strongly suggest they think before leaping into an agreement.
Know that entering into an agreement with them will cost you a minimum of $595.00 for a Web site listing and photo of your child with no other services rendered unless your child happens to get a modeling job. If you feel that $595.00 is a fair price for this kind of service, then go for it. Otherwise, don't.
Based on my experience (and in reading other web site complaints about the company) there are a number of questions parents should consider asking the Kids.com sales people at their interview:
1. What is their success ratio: (a) how many children have they signed up and (b) how many children have gotten work through them?
2. Can you consider their offer first and get back to them rather than giving them the money upfront? {Parents may want to interview with them separately to avoid committing to the high pressure sales push. Going separately would give one parent an immediate "out" before committing to the upfront fee.)
3. What is their refund policy?
4. Can they put you in touch with a representative couple that is happy with their services? Ask them if you can contact those parents for more information before deciding.
5. Can your lawyer review the contract before signing?
6. Are they licensed in the state of operation as an employment agency?
7. What are their fees if the child gets work?
2005 Update
Since I posted this epinion, I have been contacted from time to time by other parents whose experience with the company match my own. Some have gotten their money back; most have not.
It does appear that Kids.com is facing increased heat on various fronts recently, including consumers.
It is currently in litigation with the sellers of National Talent Associates over business debts (NTA, a controversial company as well, sold its business assets to Kids.com and has still not been completely paid.)
And, the New Jersey Divison of Consumer Affairs is reportedly investigating them after receiving increasing complaints about Kids.com and its practices. More on these developments, as well as sample complaints, can be found at www.easybackgroundcheck.com.
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
MiDoyle
|
 in Music |
 - Top 1000 |
|
Member: Michael Doyle
Location: Morris County, NJ
Reviews written: 464
Trusted by: 163 members
About Me:
The media lives in John McCain's underpants, which explains their brown noses.
|
|
|
© 1999-2008 Shopping.com, Inc.