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

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


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.


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

 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? 

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.

More comments