2 Responses to “Proximus”

1. 1 Monkeyget Nov 25th, 2006 at 10:23 am

   It wasn’t rejected. It aired as-is and regulary in belgium.

   Here is a rough translation :
   -I beg you pardon madam. Where is my mother?
   -But I am your mother honey.
   -Hello. What are you doing mommy?
   -I’m preparing your lunch.
   Father is already back!
   -Hey son.
   voice over : “life gets…more interesting after 4pm”
   -Your friends are waiting for you outside.

   voice over : “Pay and go generation, the new rates which offers up to 50% off after 4pm”.

2. 2 Lemurc Nov 25th, 2006 at 11:07 am

   BELGIUM
   Proximus
   Adjudication of the Jury d’Ethique Publicitaire:

   Complaints:
   There is no connection between the advert and the product being advertised. This TV advert is immoral, because it condones incest (Mother as temptress) and homosexuality (Father is a woman). Also the advert is aired when children could be watching.

   Advertiser’s Response:
   Belgacom N.V. – Proximus stated that over the years they have used humorous adverts to get their message across. They went on to explain that the advert in question gave an amusing twist to the clichéd “racy” video clips that youngsters watch every day. The fact that the teenager sees his whole family transformed into “hot babes” is a typical dream for a boy of his age. In a funny and surprising way this advert shows that life is more interesting after 16 hours. Just like the new tariffs of Pay & Go are more interesting after 16 hours (aimed at youngsters between 18 and 25).

   The company wants to emphasise that they didn’t intend the film to come across as either sexist or vulgar. The aim of the advert was to be funny, especially when you see the face of the teenage boy. The situation he finds himself in is so farfetched that it has no link to reality whatsoever.

   Position of the Jury:
   The Jury decided that the advert used an extreme form of humor to illustrate the young man’s ultimate dream. Furthermore, they decided that there was no risk of the advert being taken literally. They were also of the opinion that the advert was in no way sexually obscene or offensive. Furthermore, they decided that there was no evidence of any incestuous behavior. However, they did decide that the advert should only be aired when children could be watching television.