Ram Renews Idea From YouTube For Captivating Super Bowl Commercial

Ram Renews Idea From YouTube For Captivating Super Bowl Commercial

Now that the Superbowl is behind us we can all start talking about the best commercials we saw. All over social media it seems the one that got the big win for the night was the excellent commercial from Dodge truck with photos of farmers. Great commercial indeed... but did you know that it was inspired by an idea posted to YouTube back in 2011 by Farms.com. I have shared them both below.

Here I have embedded the two commercials to view each one. As you can see they are both photos montages to the great talk by legendary radio talk show host Paul Harvey. The only difference in fact from the two commercials is the photos themselves and of course the production value of the Dodge commercial. While there were a few great commercials at the SuperBowl I am starting to wonder if in fact the commercials might just be a tad overrated. There was a couple good ones in the mix but all in all it was a pretty disappointing night.

Update: Looks like Dodge truck went about this the right way in fact. According to the Farms.com Facebook page every view the video receives helps raise money for the National FFA Organization. Hats off to Dodge! (Thanks Mark Kauzlarich for the heads up on that.)

Here's the commercial from Dodge Truck.

Here's the original one made by Farms.com
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QuzhwkaNC40

As the writer that posted this article on Fstoppers I want to extend an apology to those that felt like the original article title was unfair to Dodge. I have changed the title to one suggested by a reader.
[Via Slate]

Log in or register to post comments
54 Comments
Mark Kauzlarich's picture

Farms.com teamed up with Ram to raise money for FFA using the commercial. Good try though. https://www.facebook.com/farmscom/posts/469365516452294

Can we get back to talking about the breathtaking images and put the pitchforks back to farming instead of headhunting? Thanks.

Thanks Mark for the heads up. I just updated the end of the article to mention that with a link to their Facebook page. Very much appreciated. 

Mark Kauzlarich's picture

I know the title is "technically" correct, and technically, of course for most people is the best kind of correct, but you could really do something positive by toning down the sensationalism in the article, or at least the title. Something to the effect of...

"Ram renews old idea off YouTube for their captivating Super Bowl Commercial."

Jamie Weston's picture

Had I not read the comments, I wouldn't have noticed the 'update' at the bottom. The article still reads as an accusation when it simply isn't true. 

Glenn Orion's picture

Exactly. An erratum of this magnitude—strongly implying plagiarism and then finding out the opposite—should have a change of title or at least have the update on the TOP of the article. In fact, if the writer, and by virtue Fstoppers, was hoping to take credit for making a "breaking story" or "You heard it here first!" kind of thing, an entirely new article should address the oversight.

There is nothing worse for readers than the feeling of betrayal. I was riled up about Dodge lifting from YouTube but now those sentiments are turned to the staff and management of Fstoppers. 

Hey Mark, I am waving the white flag. Sorry if I made you upset with the original article title. Hopefully you are cool with me borrowing the one you suggested in your comments. 

Mark Kauzlarich's picture

Thanks for doing that. It was the right call. I'm sorry to be so picky on this one, but I guess you guys have set high standards for yourselves and I hated to see that fall down, especially to something that was so... dangerous.

You do do great work here. I apologize if I got you down.

Patrick Hall's picture

Was I the only one who loved the images (especially the cut out Ken Burns effects) but found the overall commercial really boring?

Mark Kauzlarich's picture

Probably not, but I wouldn't be in your corner. That being said, I'm nostalgic for a good radio story or monologue and captivating visuals over flashy/explode-y attention grabbers.

This was pretty much in line with "It's Halftime America." I liked it.

Bert McLendon's picture

The images were awesome.  I thought it was a pretty unique advertisement though that probably increased their truck sales by 1000% today.  hahaha

Adamski's picture

I'm with ya on that. Great images, just not powerful enough or paced right to keep my attention.

I love Fstoppers, don't get me wrong... but it seems a lot of the articles posted here (this one included) are just re-written articles themselves.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2013/02/03/god_made_a_farmer_paul_ha...

My favorite Fstoppers articles are all the Originals... otherwise, I've usually seen the Fstoppers post on at least one or two other sources before it reaches Fstoppers pages.......

Mark Kauzlarich's picture

Its a problem I've voiced concerns with in the past, to the extent that they've taken down one article in the past. You could say that "Fstoppers Best Super Bowl Article was Infact [sic] Copied from Slate".

Problems that you run into:
-Just because you've attributed someone else work to them with a link back, doesn't mean you can just copy what they say to drive your own page views. Newspapers couldn't get away with it, so why does it work the other way?
-In the case of the article I reported, not only were the photos at first not attributed, but they all were wire photos, downloaded from BuzzFeed, who paid for the rights to them, and then reposted here. That is blatantly illegal, because its flat out stealing content and not paying for it.

Part of the reason a website like SLRLounge runs a slower content cycle is because they're not feeding off everyone else's news to run their site. It might be time to get back to basics on the blog.

Patrick Hall's picture

We are ramping up the original content for sure, but every single day we get article after article emailed to us so our thinking is if this many people are emailing us these stories then we should probably share them with everyone else.  I view the "reposts" more as news articles that you might want to read somewhere.  

As big as the Slate.com is online, there are a lot of our readers who might not read that site.  Our goal is cover a bit of everything photography and video related and our readers can pick and choose what they want to read.  

Mark Kauzlarich's picture

I guess that was a secondary concern to the misconstrued nature of this article and how it implied plagiarism. 

David, we absolutely agree with you. We love posting original stuff as well and have vowed that as a team we will be bringing a lot more of it to our readers this year. But in general if we happen to see something that catches our attention and we think would be interesting for our readers we will definitely share it here as well. When we do that you will see us quote our source at the bottom of the article in brackets, just as I did in this article. You will see there that I put [Via Slate] with a direct link to their article. Also if you have any suggestions for articles or would like to share something definitely holler at me. I am all ears.

Joel Andrews's picture

yeah, maybe you should check the facts before trashing the work.

Joel you must be reading a different article than me because I didn't trash the work. I also don't think any of the facts in my article are incorrect. Though if they are please let me know and I would be happy to look into the incorrect statement and make changes if necessary.

Joel Andrews's picture

Your
 title implies that the idea was completely ripped off... once you discovered that this statement was false and Dodge "went about this the right way," your only correction to the misleading article was at the bottom.  I just think that most people will miss this correction and it's an unfair title and write up of a story.  Since you "borrowed" the news from someone else, it would be hypocritical to say that there is something wrong with using someone's idea (especially when you give them credit).

It's all in the tone of how you read something. Unfortunately tone is just one of those things that can't be expressed as well as when spoken. But there is nothing untrue about the title. Even if Dodge and Farm.com were working together on the commercial it would have still been "copied from Youtube." But in the article I never trashed the commercial. In fact I actually said it was an "excellent commercial from Dodge."  

Joel Andrews's picture

I agree... and I also understand having catchy titles for blogs.  I was just thinking from the perspective of the people that loved the idea of the original video, wanted to make it bigger and give it a big stage, and didn't just copy an idea without giving people credit.  

I gotcha Joel. Let's hope that the Dodge video receives enough attention today and get's tons of views to raise lots of money for the National FFA Organization. 

Mark Kauzlarich's picture

This is an enormous cop out and you know it. Tone, surprisingly enough, can be neutral.

Tell me you didn't write the article at first accusingly. Honestly. Have you changed that tone? No.

JulieWillson's picture

The title was sensationalistic, and you know it. It still smacks of an unnecessary accusation, and contains only a thread of truth. I believe Mark posted a better headline. 

Thanks Julie for voicing your concern. I have since used the title Mark suggested and changed it. 

Bob Mulholland's picture

It definitely was a well-crafted commercial and provoked an emotional response but the pragmatic side reveals that the Dodge Ram was voted "the most dangerous car in America" and some are assembled in Saltillo, Coahuila, Mexico. Great commercial for farmers but not so much for Dodge Rams.

anise's picture

Who was the photographer on this ad? 

Mark Kauzlarich's picture
George Socka's picture

I've owned a Dodge Truck, and driven an International tractor and loved both videos. And always loved Paul Harvey's voice. Although we never had chrome reverse wheels out in the field.Too hard to clean the cow dung out of.

Mark Kauzlarich's picture

So I come back over 12 hours later and am completely disappointed with FStoppers. It seems that most people commenting on the issue feel that FStoppers is accusing Ram incorrectly plagiarism with the cop-out of the update, which is not bolded or drawn-attention-to at the bottom underneath videos, which can be easily missed.

Really sad, guys.

Mark I can tell you are pretty fired up about this. I don't see anyone here in the comments incorrectly calling out Dodge for plagiarism. The update I placed there just followed how we typically do it. Since there was no additional text after the videos I could see how it was getting overlooked so I moved it up above before the videos play. 

Mr Blah's picture

Change the damn title and rewrite an article of apology.

This is embarassing! (Accusing Dodge without having done research...)

the_pro_amateur's picture

So we're seriously ok, in 2013, with a big company publicly admitting they believe in wizards and fairy tales?  A man in the sky wiggling his nose and making a planet?  It's really sad that this still exists in the world.  Maybe even sadder that a company would leverage the beliefs of other uneducated, possibly mentally ill people, to sell some product.

Mark Kauzlarich's picture

Thats not at all what they were trying to get at with this ad...

the_pro_amateur's picture

That wasn't my point, and I don't see the point of your comment.  They're trying to sell a product, which is the point of any commercial.  If you think they accidentally used this recording for the ad, you're naive.  There were meetings to approve this, and discuss the pros and cons.  "God made a farmer" was chosen on purpose.
I'd be curious to see the reaction if they had used another fictional deity from history, or another name, like Allah.  Then people would notice, and the reactions would range from "Zeus made a farmer?  That's odd.", to "WTF!!! TERRORISTS!!!"

Scary world I live in to be surrounded by these people.

Travis Allen McAdoo's picture

.

the_pro_amateur's picture

Well Travis deleted his comment, but for all those who missed it:
"Dear Moron.  Whats more sad is that YOU believe that somehow matter
magically appeared, then that matter magically formed into the AMAZING
things that are the universe. Then. the earth JUST SO HAPPENED to be the
perfect distance from the sun to sustain life. and that somehow a
single tiny Amino Acid "evolved" into the diversity and complex living
creatures we have on earth."Actually I know what was taught and is provable by others.  The universe did form and we did happen evolve here.  I know what I know and I'm not so frightened of NOT knowing something that I have to make up a fairy tale.  If we ever figure out more beyond that, then we'll know THAT and can move on to other questions like rational people.  There will always be more to learn.Your argument assumes that there is no life anywhere else in the universe.  There is not a "perfect distance" from the sun to promise life.  There very well may be life on a moon in our solar system that's being investigated.  There used to be water on Mars.  Is that in the bible?  I forget.  Also, your religion has conveniently gone from "god created only this planet and a hot ball to warm it, then created man by plopping him down", (because the people who made up this fictional story didn't know any better), to "god created the universe and an uncountable number of stars, galaxies, and planets for the sole purpose of putting human being on THIS ONE for a tiny fraction of it's time in the cosmos."Incredibly small minded and egotistical of you, and those who believe the same.

Patrick Hall's picture

As both a Christian and having a BS Degree in Biology/Chemistry, I have come to grips with the FACT that neither spiritual believers nor scientific minds can ever PROVE one or the other.  Science tries to prove it but real scientific methodology can only observe and postulate the here and now, the testable if you will.  Religion on the other hand can't prove the origin of man either.  Both fields, while not as at odds as modern philosophy would have you believe, require a lot of faith and neither one can provide a testable/scientific answer to something that happened in the past.

I love to debate theology and the origin of man....it's a pretty interesting topic for sure that has universal appeal.  However, believing in something like the Big Bang where an indefinitely dense collection of matter was affected by an outside energy source is just as "idiotic" at the end of the day as someone believing in an all powering god.  I say idiotic because from the perspective of our own minds, both are as illogical and impossible to prove as the other.

I'd love to 100% believe in the scientific course but if there is one thing that is for certain it is that science is fluid and the truth's it claim are never quite accurate.  I personally find it hard to say anything in science is certain when "constants" like Relativity, the speed of light, absolute zero, quantum theories, and even the beginning of time change every 20 years.  Most molecular scientists don't even really agree with Darwin anymore now that we know how molecular machines work and have possibly evolved.  

My point is neither side can ever really win the argument and usually this causes a lot more pain and bickering than what it's worth.  Life is too short and flawed to get all worked up about this sort of thing....especially on a photography blog :)

Patrick Hall's picture

I just reread your full post, and I don't know why you think the Bible must address everything concerning modern man (no book could ever do that), but Genesis does mention God speaking the stars and heavens into the sky.  Whether or not that meant man was supposed to know Mars had water or not is beyond the scope of what the story was supposed to tell.  

I'm really not wanting to argue this on here one way or the other...but I must point out your fallacy in saying that one person's point of view is wrong, false, wishful, or inaccurate when you yourself (or anyone) cannot prove your belief either, is a bit hypocritical itself.  It's fine to believe in one thing over another, but to accuse anyone that their beliefs are WRONG based on "reason" or "logic" is more than troubling.  It's a kin to saying there is no god, I know this, and I may do whatever I like with my life because I will not answer to anyone....you are then infact saying you are your own god.  No one can prove the Big Bang (I'm not even sure if this is 100% the current belief of science, AFAIK string theory and parallel universes have become the main belief among the scientific community) and no one can prove any God of creation from any religion.  Both require faith, and to belittle someone else for having faith is being a bit hypocritical of your own faith. The faith you have in your belief is exactly the same as someone who believes in something else.  Neither of you were there and both religious and scientific answers require assumptions and faith in order to give an explanation as to why we are here.

the_pro_amateur's picture

Sorry, wrong.  To repeat myself again, I don't have a "belief" that I just made up out of fantasy.  It's also perfectly fine to say someone is wrong when they are.  Ahhh avoid conflict!  Don't offend!  It's America where we have to cater to the lowest common denominator and not think for ourselves.
God created the earth in 7 days?  Wrong.  Flood with an arc and 2 of each animal?  Wrong.  Populating the earth with 2 people?  Wrong.See how easy it is?And saying because I don't "answer to anyone" I am my own god is a bizarre way to put that, which I think is just designed to make those people look bad.  I think religious people who behave because they think otherwise they'll be spanked by a monster when they die, are much worse people than those who do what they think is right simply because it is.  All we know for sure is we have the here and now.People who argue science and religion always say neither can prove everything.  The difference is that science is constantly trying to PROVE something, and religion is always made up stories that are DISPROVED later.Science has disproved things religion taught time after time.  That's why we have significantly less than the 2,000+ deities we once did.  To any logical person, the fact that humans who didn't know any better kept making up stories to explain the world, would invalidate every religion eventually.  Again, it's disgustingly egotistical for people to say "all those other ones were wrong, but mine, that's the right one for sure!"Prove heaven to me.  Religion says it's there, gives instructions on what you have to do to get there, how much money you have to give to a church, etc.  Prove it's there.Were you going to say "you can't, but neither can science! (haha look how smart I am!)"THAT'S WHY SCIENCE NEVER SAID THERE WAS AN AFTERLIFE.  It hasn't been proven so there's no one to make up a completely random story (aside from the church).What was the big bang?  What happened before?  NO ONE KNOWS... yet.  That's the entire point that you people can't wrap your head around.  I honestly think it's a widespread mental illness, and it's frightening.  Your brains would melt if you had to hit that wall and say "I don't know", unless it's about religion.Why did god do ______?  I don't know, he felt like it.  I don't need to think anymore!Where did the universe come from?  Uhhh... oh shit... oh my god. I... I... OH! God just put it there.  Whew, now I don't have to think anymore.Interesting that this big bang thing wasn't around when your god created the earth.  Once we know about it though, now god created that too.  Why?  Just for us.  An entire infinite universe with one tiny planet with POS human beings on it, who may never be advanced enough to see any of it anyway.  Completely illogical and absurd thought process religious people have.  Again, it's got to be a mental illness to think this way about anything.It's like any group scared people put themselves in.  You don't think beyond it and just take comfort in the thought that some number of people also blindly stand behind you.  Religions, politics, just groups of people who can't be burdened with independent thought.

Swphoto1126's picture

Why do you people always come out of the woodwork with your ignorant remarks? You expect open mindedness for your views yet you are quick to shut down other people's view. Ignorant childish and hypocritical.

the_pro_amateur's picture

Whoooooa now.  If you're going to tell me that accepting reality as reality is open minded, there's a bigger problem than I thought.  I don't have any views.  The earth is round, the sun is the center of the solar system, and people weren't wished into existence.  You can check on those actually.  If I didn't "believe" in those things, I'd just be a crazy person.
Maybe we'd all be a little better off if, when someone started acting all crazy and spouting nonsense, we crawled out of our shell and told them to knock it off.
...Nah.

Swphoto1126's picture

So you have no views? You're just a sheep who believes in nothing except what he's told to believe in and therefor who's words mean nothing because you are nothing but a follower who can't form his own opinions on anything. Nobody gives you crap for not believing in anything and yet you give others crap for mentioning god or faith in a commercial? If you pay attention to this whole conversation it's not just about selling trucks. It's about giving back to the people who put food on your table and clothes on your back. If you don't like the views of those people stop eating the food they farm and the clothes made of the cotton they produce. But you won't... And that's what makes you a hypocrite

the_pro_amateur's picture

I'm confused by your argument little fella.  "...a sheep who believes in nothing except what he's told to believe in and therefor who's words mean nothing because you are nothing but a follower who can't form his own opinions on anything..."
I find it hilarious that you'd use those words to describe someone who believes in fact, when it exactly describes the problem intelligent people have with religion.

Then you go on talking about food and cotton as if I've somehow said "people who grow food are bad!" *stomps feet*  You're a nut.

Swphoto1126's picture

I mentioned them because it's ironic how you talk down on religion while the farmers(the point of the commercial) are people of faith who help you stuff your ignorant mouth. I'm not arguing because you talk down on religion. I'm arguing with you because you made ignorant pointless statements that had nothing to do with this Fstoppers posting.

the_pro_amateur's picture

Ok, so you'd be fine with thunder coming from Zeus?  I'm sure no one will look at you weird if you came out with that one.  You're in a mainstream cult dude and that's the only reason you feel safe sticking with it.
And now all farmers believe in fairy tales?  I never said that either.  How do you even know where my food and clothes come from?  You're creating both sides of your own argument.  Are you a woman?  I notice they do this a lot.
Pay attention everyone.  Crazy people like to do this thing where they'll make an argument against something you never said because they don't know what else to say.  Plus if it's a really crazy point they've created for you, it makes them feel/appear more valid.  That's what "swphoto" is doing.

Swphoto1126's picture

I'd be ok with whatever because I believe what I believe and others are allowed to believe or do what they want. And for your information dumb shit I'm a male atheist. So shut the fuck up and stop using that argument. Not all atheists are as ignorant and hypocritical as you. You make us look bad. I accept that other people have different beliefs than I do and that's ok. As long as they are good people that's all that matters. If you don't like the commercial than change the channel and close your mouth as much as your mind

the_pro_amateur's picture

Uh oh, he's getting confused again.  Just to recap, I never said I was atheist.  I also never said people aren't allowed to believe things.  Again, making an argument against a fictional point because he has nothing of real substance to say.
Since you've identified yourself as an atheist SW, you are aware that your group believes in no gods?  Seems like you're the one being hypocritical for saying I can't say the same thing.

I think baby just woke up on the wrong side of the bed and felt like fighting with someone today.  I forgive you.  Please say 3 Hall Moses

Swphoto1126's picture

Oh idiot... I never said I believed in anything. I said it's ok for others to have beliefs of their own. Or do you disagree? Other people's beliefs as long as they don't come down on me for being different is perfectly ok.

the_pro_amateur's picture

*stomp stomp stomp* Baby's so cranky!
You're not even making sense now and have no point anymore.  Your grammar is even getting worse.

You are just posting to argue little baby.  Go take a nap.

More comments