I do not like it at all, and the reasons for my dislike are plenty. First, I want to say that I think the occasional celebrity used to sell one or two products is fine, but now celebrities are infiltrating the whole product spectrum, advocating everything from shampoo to underwear to sunglasses to haute couture. To me this is celebrity overkill, and it feels very much as if advertisers are cramming them down our throats, which is not a good feeling.
Secondly, many advertisers are using all types of celebrities and not just those who in my opinion would be worthy of product endorsements. Mischa Barton, Scarlett Johansen, Maggie Gyllenhall et all can hardly be considered "A" actresses at this point in their careers. Moreover, this is contradictory of the most prominent argument that has been used in support of the actresses, the argument being that celebrities are much more recognizable than models. Honestly, I do not know many people who would in an instant recognize Mischa (unless they are faithful FOX watchers) or Maggie, who has appeared in a small number of--quite frankly--insignifcant movies at this point. What this leads me to believe is that when advertisers approach a respectable actress, they are turned down, and so they have to resort to less agreeable subjects, which I think cheapens their brand name.
More respectable actresses often do a good job when trying to endorse a product. For example, when Gwyneth Paltrow appeared in an advertisement for Dior bags, she looked good and sophisticated. In contrast, oscar-winner-but-hasn't-had-a-hit-or- a-commendable-film-since Hilary Swant for Calvin Klein looks trashy and over-sexed. If Hilary Swant hasn't had a hit in years and this is proof that she cannot sell movie tickets, one cannot help but wonder what kind of power she will posses in selling underwear?