This post is brought to you by Levi-Strauss

We're a strange bunch, we are. We give such high importance to such mundane things, and almost ignore the important ones. Such is the case with advertising.

During one of the football games yesterday, an ad for Wrangler came on, and there's old Brett Favre tossing a football around. He later goes on to tell us that he likes jeans. And we're supposed to buy them based on that. I already know what jeans are, and it won't influence me one way or another if a celebrity wears a certain brand. It may in fact, sometimes do the opposite.

Outside of his ability as a football player, Mr. Favre has no other distinguishing characteristics, like a worldly skill or anything. He excels at a game and earns a lot of money at it, so we're supposed to ascribe some intrinsic value to that, so it will make Wrangler jeans look like the jeans that influential people wear. I'd be more likely to accept the advice of a trusted friend or relative, but we can't get them on the TV.

I'm not trying to indict Brett here. His just happened to be the commercial I saw that started me to thinking. It could have been Ellen DeGeneres or Tiger Woods driving a Buick.

I wonder if companies can make a link between such a mundane everyday product as pants and any increase in sales from who is doing the advertising? Is it worth as much as you pay these people to do it for you? I'm guessing, a lot of times it's not. I'd bet you have to sell a Hell of a lot of Buicks to earn back what they must have paid Tiger for that deal. I figure, you drive a Buick because you want one, not necessarily because Tiger says so. I'd bet a lot of them couldn't pick Tiger out of a lineup.

It's got to be lucrative, though. Being a product spokesman is what keeps golfers in the bucks. When I met Christie Kerr's aunt at the LPGA tournament earlier this year, she told me that Christie made something like $300,000 in tournaments and a million total, including endorsements. Most of it from cosmetics and an insurance company. I suppose women might be willing to use Christie's eye liner, but I don't think I'd buy life insurance because she wears a company hat. What she makes is nothing compared to what Annika makes, or certainly Tiger or Phil Mickelson.

I'm sure a lot of kids bought those shoes that Michael Jordan pushed or Joe D's Mr. Coffee, but I'm not sure how much of a difference it makes with mundane products like jeans or food. You either like Chalupa's or you don't.

Maybe it's that I'm not as easily manipulated as some, or maybe I'm right and most of it is wasted money. I just don't think that everyday household products need big name spokesmen.

How about you, Internet blog readers. Do you purchase a product based on a celebrity spokes(person), or do you think it's a colossal waste of money that could otherwise be spent reducing the price?