Can you cite any one of them that was made coming off an appearance in an advertisement?
No, but I can cite aliens which *didn't* appear in movies or can't be found without the use of hi-def freeze frames. It's not "From the hit commercial!" so much as it is "Here's a point of reference." We've seen figures based on unused concept designs, (relatively) obscure 1980s comic books, and whatever the heck Jorg Sacul is. When you get right down to it, the bulk of what happens gets made because someone WANTS it to happen. They don't need an excuse, or even a precedent, half the time.
Apples and bowling balls, Adam. Perhaps you should reread my original post. I'm not arguing we have over 1,800 from varied sources, I said it's doubtful the character(s) appearance here (and if you watched the commercial, you really have to know to look for them) will turn her/them into plastic. I'm all for it, I merely don't think it will happen if we're predicating it on a Superbowl ad.
No, I read your post before I replied. I think we're having different discussions-- you're saying "Yes, the fact that it's from the ad matters as a marketing point on the packaging" while I'm saying "No, it doesn't matter where the figure comes from." Hasbro doesn't play up where the figures come from half the time-- Vintage is a great example, like the ARC Trooper Commander last year. It has a "Clone Wars" logo on it, and a figure, and doesn't even use the name "Fordo" even though (wink wink) it's Fordo.
How is that spiritually different from putting a girl with a beehive hairdo in a green costume on a Star Wars cardback? Who cares if it's from a commercial? Just use the classic Star Wars logo, use a still taken from the set of the ad, and presto-- here's a character who is a Tonnika but isn't from the original 1977 movie. To the consumer, it probably doesn't matter. (To me, as a collector, I don't care-- if the costume and the make-up and hair is right, the face can be a little off. Lord knows they usually are anyway.)
All I know is Hasbro can take characters from any corner of the Star Wars mythos-- theme park rides, movies, comics, concept art, and things they JUST MADE UP-- slap a Star Wars logo on it, and it'll sell X0,000 units. This might be an "agree to disagree" situation, as (and maybe we do agree here) there's no reason to assume the *toy buyers* care about the ad one way or another, and as a marketing point to the toy buyer, it's totally not remotely the slightest bit important. I'm not concerned about selling fans on the notion of a toy from a car commercial, I'm concerned about the possibility of saying "Here is a picture of a character in the Cantina who looks kind of like but isn't this other person" with a Star Wars logo on the box.
But will legal care? Is this new interpretation "different enough" to be cleared? Is the fact that we're even having this discussion enough to highlight that this is exactly why Hasbro and Lucasfilm will never make this character as a toy? Heck if I know.