UPDATED: Dodge "God Made A Farmer," a direct lift of farms.com.

I know everyone’s going gaga about the Richard's Group's "God Made a Farmer" ad for Dodge because it cut through the clutter and was quiet and beautiful in an otherwise lacklustre year of super bowl spots. And this is true. Paul Harvey's voice still resonates long after he made this speech back in the 1970's.

But. I guess I would like it more if Farms.com didn’t do the exact same spot, right down to using Paul Harvey's voice and the execution (though not as heavily retouched) two years ago.

Do we still like it as much?

The Richard's Group Ad:

Dodge Ram God made a farmer

The farms.com tribute from 2011:

As you can see below the Farms.com people even acknowledge it on the website but still. It just seems less...magical.

Update: According to Dodge's Design Chief Ryan Nagode's tweet, it was all planned:

How nice of you to clarify after the fact. I think we have a different definition of "keeping the idea alive." I see this more as, taking an idea and redoing it and calling it your own. As one Faecbook friend commented: " I feel bad for the people who made the farms dot com video. I hope they at least made money off this."

I hope so, too. Speaking of those other people, I went to Dodge's site as instructed, but I saw no mention of the original ad anywhere. It's certainly not posted on Dodge's site. I only see the "keep the idea alive," version. So one has to wonder, had we not found out about the other version existing, would you have mentioned it?

Hell, even a visit to Farms.com only shows the new Dodge version and not the original.

Now Farms.com is also saying this isn't a ripoff.

But please, guys, can someone tell me exactly what it is if it isn't a ripoff? Is it an homage? Is it a re-imagining? How do you explain it? Did they go to Farms.com and say "hey can we remake your spot exactly the same way but with more money?" So is it less of a ripoff if you "partner" with the people who did it originally? Do you know who created the original version? We'd like to see if they feel just a wee bit slighted. Did the creative team include their name in the credits list?

Don't worry, we'll be sure to get clarification as the story unfolds.

Adland® is supported by your donations alone. You can help us out by buying us a Ko-Fi coffee.
Anonymous Adgrunt's picture
Files must be less than 1 MB.
Allowed file types: jpg jpeg gif png wav avi mpeg mpg mov rm flv wmv 3gp mp4 m4v.
AnonymousFarmer's picture

Ram and Farms.com and FFA have all partnered up to show this remade ad because it is moving. The focus is to bring attention to farmers and to raise money for FFA. It shouldn't matter if it is a remake it is for a good cause and got the point across very well.

Dabitch's picture

First of all: I hope the FFA gets a lot of attention and raises a lot of money for these efforts. Both of them were great. And both were moving.

And while it may not matter to Ram and Farms.com if the ad was remade. i should point out that this is a site devoted to advertising and it matters to a lot of people who work in our field, for what i assume should be very obvious reasons.

We're creators for a living. We like to make new things. To redo something, even with a bigger budget, even as noble as it is, doesn't serve us well.

caffeinegoddess's picture

Apparently there are only so many ways to honor farmers? Think it's also interesting how some advertisers are using what usually is tits, jocks and slap stick humor and using it as a platform for topics with a bit more meat on the bones.

American Copywriter's picture

Remember, too, though that "Whazzup" was not original either. It was a short film. Someone saw it and said, "Well, this is great, let's put this to work." The filmmaker was in on it. I see something similar happening here. I understand why everyone is prickly but if the originators were in on it, I'm having a hard time being terribly outraged by it.

middletree's picture

I can't see the Farms.com ad here. It says the content is protected or accessed denied or somesuch thing.

Dabitch's picture

Whazzup existed pre youtube. So no one could go and discover that another company was "in on it." Interesting too, that we only discover this after the fact. Oh sure we knew they were partnering up- but the actual video remake? Sorry. It's tacky. I don't care if the originators were in on it or not-- and anyway what exactly does that mean besides "here, go ahead and remake our idea?"
This is the problem with creatives going to youtube for 'inspiration.' they're going to remake shit instead. and besides production value, in this case, they added nothing new to the spot.