Surely you don't think the premise of either of those ads was creative?
I liked the first one. I would not say it was the most amazing ad ever, but it was not bad.
The second, I really don't get at all. It just makes no sense.
The bigger point though is that these ads were pretty mundane. The fact that one could interoperate that the 2nd ad implies women should be passive simply because the female climber was a sleep is kind of remarkable. Same thing with the first ad; it was just a mild jest at men.
Working in the creative industry, I can tell you from experience creative directors are going to look at this ruling and be bewildered by it. It will cause them to second guess a lot of ideas for the fear of it not getting approved.
Lets look at the second ad. People took issue with the sleeping climber being a woman. Okay, so take her out. Then people will complain about where are all of the women in the first half of the commercial. Okay, lets have her be reading and the man sleeping. Then people will complain why a woman was not given one of the more active roles like the astronaut. How about the second half, which supposedly implies that women need to be caregivers. Well, the scene only has one person, so it must be represented by just one gender. If having a woman makes it an issue, replace her with a man. But then, since the woman could be described as not really paying attention, putting a man into that part could then lead people to think that the ad is implying what the first ad got in trouble for.
