When ad agencies use well-known actors it always feels to me like a crutch for an idea or copy that's just not "insanely great". It's a pretty good ad. Not great, but good. We've seen much worse from Apple in the past few years, so I'm glad to see them on good creative footing again.
Everything in TV advertising depends on "crutches" or shorthand of some sort. Cliches and stereotypes tend to be embraced. Back when I was doing that sort of thing, I used to say, "I work on 30-second and 60-second feature films" (20s and 15s were not yet sold by the networks). They often communicate more in those time spans than a feature filmmaker manages in the typical 2.5 minute scene.
Using well-known performers (and the association with their characters/music/trusted reputations/current events, etc.) may eliminate precious seconds of exposition. They may grab our attention in ways unfamiliar faces would not... Consider Cookie Monster. We know his character, which makes it faster and easier to setup the joke. We have affection for and trust of the character that goes back to our childhoods - we pay attention because we expect to be well-entertained. We trust Cookie, therefore we trust Apple. What anonymous sock puppet could accomplish what Cookie did, in the time allotted?
Considering what celebrities cost, believe me, there's plenty of "Is this cost necessary" discussion that goes on when the spot is in development. Still, there are times celebrities are nothing more than window dressing. I was involved in more than a few vanity projects, where the client or ad agency may have been more interested in rubbing elbows on the set than whether the spot would succeed. Famous or not, talent may be used to great purpose,
or wasted. There are no hard-and-fast rules.
In the end, all that matters is the efficacy of the ad. The goal is not high art or entertainment, it's selling product. It's just really sweet when high art does manage to sell a lot of product!
