While Chrysler has been behind the Super Bowl's most talked-about commercials for the past few years, this is the first year the automaker has added an element of charity to its marketing plans for the big game.

Chrysler aired a pair of two-minutes ads during the Super Bowl this year, one for Jeep called Whole Again, and the other for the Ram brand called Farmer. As we mentioned earlier in the week, Jeep has promised to give up to $300,000 to the United Services Organization (USO). The brand, whose own history is forever tied to this country's military, will donate $1 for every tweet with the hashtag #joinOSR, or visit to Yahoo.com or the Jeep Operation SAFE Return website.

Ram had somewhat loftier goals, pledging to give up to $1 million to the Future Farmers of America. The plan was to donate $100,000 for every 1 million times the commercial was seen, shared or emailed from its website. Now we have word from Ram brand chief Fred Diaz that the million-dollar goal has been reached less than five days after the ad first aired.

The ad has reportedly done wonders for Ram, as well, with traffic to its website up ten-fold and dealers reporting their showrooms are fuller than before, sometimes with people who just want to say how much the ad had touched them. If you feel moved to watch the ad again, feel free to scroll down below for the video.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 56 Comments
      VDuB
      • 1 Year Ago
      I wanna see a ".. So God made an accountant" ad, or ".. So God made an Engineer" ad. We feel left out! Discrimination. We work just as hard.
        Numz
        • 1 Year Ago
        @VDuB
        I"m a computer programmer, my dad is a farmer, which means I grew up farming. For you to say that an accountant or a programmer or engineer works just as hard, means you haven't farmed a day in your life and I'd be surprised if you have even stepped foot on a farm! My dad didn't want me to take over the family farm because he wanted me to have a better life than him, he didn't want me to have to work as hard as he had to to make a living. Growing up on the farm definitely made me realize the importance of a job well done and taught me how to work but I know damn well you don't work as hard as a farmer. As a senior software developer for a large company I put in a lot of hours at work and I work hard but I don't work as hard as a farmer, I don't come close. I wouldn't even dare compare myself to one.
        The Other Bob
        • 1 Year Ago
        @VDuB
        I am sure you work hard, but famers worker harder than most of us.
        Chris
        • 1 Year Ago
        @VDuB
        I take it that you don't know many farmers. No one is saying that accountants and engineers don't work hard, so please, spare us the crocodile tears already. Farming is much more than just a job, or career. It's a way of life. The farmers I've known worked all day, and every day, and little to no time for vacations. Now, would you feel all "left out" and discriminated against if it were VW that made the ad? I suspect not.
      Bruce Lee
      • 1 Year Ago
      30 seconds of airtime cost $4 million during the superbowl so the 2 minute long farmer ad cost them $16 million just to air but they're donating "up to" $1 million? Add on what they probably paid for the ad itself to be produced and you're looking at 5% of their expenditures being actually to help farmers and 95% of their expenditures to talk about how they're helping farmers. It's an even more terribly small percentage with the $300,000 amount for the USO. Come on Chrysler, at least spend as much on the troops and farmers as the ads!
        Slackjaw McGraw
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Bruce Lee
        Not to mention that the money is only donated when the video is "seen, shared, or emailed" so there's more free advertising for them! I honestly hated both the Jeep and Ram commercials, seemed just like an easy way to try and make a touching commercial and bank off of its success.
          reattadudes
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Slackjaw McGraw
          yet every survey asking which were the best Superbowl ads ALWAYS put these two at the top. sounds like really sour grapes to me!!
        blitzkrieg550
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Bruce Lee
        You sound like a stereotype of someone's aging jewish mother...They give $1,000,000 and you're wondering why they didn't give 16million? Oh but what am I thinking, I'm sure you just pass up chances to make money all the time right? You get up, clean up, drive to work, do an excellent job and help out around the office for free right? Yeah I didn't think so. Sure Chrysler should've just given 32 million to charity and not have tried to make a dime back in sales, so then you or someone else could scream bloody murder about what a bad financial decision that was and blah blah blah my tax dollars blah blah bailouts...there's just no pleasing some people I guess.
        Chris
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Bruce Lee
        Good lord, some of you have to find the negative in everything. A company chooses to donate some money to farmers, and instead of admitting that it was a nice gesture on their part, you have to piss and moan about how it's not enough like spoiled little brat. What have you donated to lately? Chrysler is a company, not a charity. They did not have donate anything. They chose to, have a little perspective here.
          lne937s
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Chris
          For another perspective, Chrysler had net revenue of $65B in 2012 and spent $1.3MM on the USO and FFA donations. If you are he typical American household making $50k, that is the equivalent of giving $1 to charity... then spending $30 to tell people about it.
          Chris
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Chris
          Here's another perspective. Every little bit helps. What Chrysler chose to donate was their choice, not ours, and that's how it should be. How about a little gratitude, instead of pissing and moaning about what they didn't do? Have we allowed ourselves as a society to become that spoiled? If so, then I fear for the future of this country because that is not the kind of thinking that made us the nation we are today. And who knows? Maybe this ad will encourage even more businesses to do the same, and I can't see how that would be a bad thing. At the end of the day, feeling all offended by this display of compassion is just ridiculous. It would be like some homeless guy getting all pissy because some rich guy in a Porsche only gave him a 5 dollar bill instead of a 50.
          lne937s
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Chris
          This is a matter of perspective. Nobody is saying that companies shouldn't be donating to charity, and Chrysler is by no means alone in doing it. And they have every right to use an organization in advertising if that organization agrees to the terms... But like fundraisers who take $9 from every $10 raised, the question is whether it is exploitative. Many automakers donate millions of dollars to a great number of causes. However, Chrysler is the only company that spent $32MM of the most expensive media possible to brag about it. When over 96% of what you spend is talking about what you are doing and less than 4% doing it, I think people have a legitimate right to think that is being exploitative. And from some perspectives, paying taxes for things like veterans affairs, farm subsidies, and other causes is doing their part. More than 4% of of your taxes actually go to help people (with things like national defense, roads, bridges, police, schools, etc. as a bonus). But you are entitled to your perspective.
          Smilez1105
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Chris
          lne937s - I could tell you how it really isn\'t that simple, but some people like to complain for complainings\' sake, wioll never be happy and always take the negative in any situation. Therefore, I\'ll just let yoiu and the rest of the whiners here just...well...whine.
          Chris
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Chris
          Yeah, but we are not talking about $1 here, we are talking about 1.3 million of them. I don't care how you slice it and dice it. It's still a lot of money, more than most of us make in a decade. A million bucks may be chump change to Chrysler and rich people like yourself, but not for those of us that would have to work 20 years just to say we've made a million dollars.
        lne937s
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Bruce Lee
        Better than the 2 minute $16MM Jeep ad that advertised a surcharge that raises up to $300k for the USO, but not much better. Between the two, Chrysler is spending $32MM to raise $1.3MM. Although better than nothing, celebrity talent fees would be more than that. I think the people who think this is exploitative have a point.
          Rick Hamilton
          • 1 Year Ago
          @lne937s
          I was just wondering, how much did you donate? I'm sure that with all your talk you donated $64million.
          • 1 Year Ago
          @lne937s
          [blocked]
        Trent
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Bruce Lee
        What other car company has given as much in a Superbowl ad?
      VDuB
      • 1 Year Ago
      How many farmers are going to buy a chromed out $45k Ram? Most farmers drive 90s Fords in the field. They need to target the grocery haulers who are compensating for something.
        Smilez1105
        • 1 Year Ago
        @VDuB
        Seriously VDuB? Lame as always.
        • 1 Year Ago
        @VDuB
        [blocked]
        Chris
        • 1 Year Ago
        @VDuB
        Yeah, that would sell a lot of Rams. /s You obviously have no idea how marketing works. The fact that you have to resort to telling one of the oldest jokes on the planet tells me that you are probably not the wittiest guy out there either.
      Smilez1105
      • 1 Year Ago
      I\'d like to hear from the farmers and military personnel about the commercials. Not a bunch of whiny little over-priveledged brats that probably haven\'t donated more than some old clothes they need to get rid of. \"They didn\'t donate enough for what they spent on the commercials!!!\" They donated, more than the other companies on the Super Bowl. It\'s also money they don\'t have to doante. They are also (second time AB failed to mention) donating vehicles. I mean seriously people. Is it that important to you to crap on donations? Let alone the awareness it brought to the farming community and the military personnel. Try reading up on the rest of the foundations and then come back to complain.
        The_Zachalope
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Smilez1105
        Coming from a farming family, I see where Ram was going with this commercial, but many farmers don't see it too highly. They're too modest. They would rather do their job without all the recognition, as they know at the end of the day they can go to bed knowing they've put in their best. As for the FFA contribution, absolutely it's a good gesture, but is it necessary to tell people about it? Eh, I'm on the fence with this one. It's nice to know large corporations are recognizing non-profit organizations who are working on the future of youth, but on the other hand, how many years (and millions of dollars) has Ford supported the FFA without having to make a commercial out of it?
        lne937s
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Smilez1105
        Can we please stop with the name calling. Some people think "something is better than nothing" and think companies are justified spending 25 times more money talking about what they donate than donating it... but other people think it is being exploitative. That doesn't make one group "chumps," and it doesn't make the other group "whiners". It is just different perspectives.
          lne937s
          • 1 Year Ago
          @lne937s
          I\'m a big boy and can handle it. But some basic human civillity is needed around here. Personal attacks and childish name calling are not needed. If you can\'t think of a rational, intelligent response, better to say nothing at all. There are people who do not share your perspective, which is no reason to attack them personally. Living here in NYC, there are a whole lot of us are still ticked off by all the people who lined there pockets and pushed political agendas by exploiting 9/11. A lot of the donations from well-intending people made a few individuals rich without helping anyone. A lot of politicians who voted against first responders used 9/11 to push political agendas that most people around here disagree with. So me and a lot of people who share my perspective are very skeptical of people trying to use charity and a well-intending public for personal gain. Some people do not have the same experiences and do not share that skepticism.
          Smilez1105
          • 1 Year Ago
          @lne937s
          Didn\'t mean to hurt your feelings....
          • 1 Year Ago
          @lne937s
          [blocked]
          lne937s
          • 1 Year Ago
          @lne937s
          Here\'s why I\'m worried. If people do not realize this is more hype than substance, then it may displace other activities that benefit society. Someone paying $25k for a new Chrysler product may believe they do not have to do any more, even though only ~50 cents of that car is going to the causes in those Superbowl ads. We saw something similar with first responders... people claimed that they already did fundraisers in their hometowns, that the first responders should be grateful and that they didn\'t have to do any more. Meanwhile many of the charities they gave money to squandered that money, and the people who rushed in to save lives were dying bankrupt. Or the people who do not think they should support the school levy because they buy lottery tickets. Or the people who gave money unknowingly through a fundraising company where 90%+ plus went to their fees (rather than to the charity) not feeling like they should support any number of good causes anymore, either directly or through policy. Personally, I am not a fan of Gore making millions from global warming any more than I was a fan of Elizabeth Dole\'s Red Cross sallary. I think any \"not for profit\" that pays their CEO more than the President of the United States should have their tax-exempt status revoked. It is good that Chrysler is giving money and it is good they are selling cars, but too much hype and not enough context around it can be a bad thing. If people misunderstand this as more significant than it is, then that is not good.
          Chris
          • 1 Year Ago
          @lne937s
          Or, you could look at it this way. Maybe some folks will donate to these organizations that they didn't even know existed prior to seeing and/or reading about these advertisements. Call me what you will, but I wasn't aware of the USO or the Future Farmers of America. Like I said, it's a win/win for Chrysler. They got themselves some positive press, created awareness, and helped a few people along the way. I don't see how that's a bad thing. As for the folks you described in your post? They don't sound like the type of people who would go out of their way to help those in need, so I don't think anything is really being lost there. With that said, I don't think you'll have to worry about their dealerships being flooded with wanna-be activists looking to buy new Rams to help troops and save farms. No, a more real case scenario is some guy in the market for a new pickup truck seeing the ads on Super Bowl Sunday being a little moved and thinking "Hey, you know what, maybe I'll go check out one of those new Rams and see what they're like. I've always been kind of a Chevy guy but want to see what else is out there."
      BK
      • 1 Year Ago
      Nice over romanticized advertisement. Too bad the era of the small farmer is long gone. It should have said "god gave us Cargill. god gave us Monsanto. god gave us Archer Daniels Midland. god gave us Dole." Pathetic attempt at pulling on nostalgia to sell gas guzzlers. The comment by Bruce Lee is on the money. Pun intended.
        Chris
        • 1 Year Ago
        @BK
        Oh cry us all a river why don't you!! Whatever point you were trying to make was basically diluted by all of your whining. Unlike your little philosophical and opinionated rant, the ad did exactly what it was supposed to do, get people's attention, and even help a few people along the way. In your post, you come across as someone with a bit of an inferiority complex scraping the bottom of the barrel for criticisms because you don't particularly like the vehicles being marketed.
        Roy
        • 1 Year Ago
        @BK
        Gas guzzlers with the best mileage in the industry...
      David
      • 1 Year Ago
      Everyone of you who feels that Ram is only trying to help themselves should be ashamed. How much have you given to help these people? My guess is zero. Look in a mirror and say I am better than Ram!
        GeeDavy
        • 1 Year Ago
        @David
        Let's not forget that just four years ago Ram, Jeep and the rest of the Chrysler Jeep was the charity case, with the US government doling out the cash. I think everyone who's paid taxes can look in the mirror and say, "I'm so much better than Ram."
          reattadudes
          • 1 Year Ago
          @GeeDavy
          are you disappointed that Chrysler succeeded, and paid back every penny to the government that was requested?
          merlot066
          • 1 Year Ago
          @GeeDavy
          No, but he's pointing out that a very short time ago Chrysler needed huge charity from the US Government which we all pay into and now they are giving some charity back. Every company gives to charitable causes. Ford ran very similar commercials after hurricane Sandy with Mike Rowe thanking rescue and utility workers and donated $1 million to the Red Cross. Chrysler's good deed shouldn't be severly discounted but it shouldn't be overly-glorified.
          Roy
          • 1 Year Ago
          @GeeDavy
          Oh you mean the money that they paid back? How about the billions still owed by Ford, which they haven't even begun to pay back?
          merlot066
          • 1 Year Ago
          @GeeDavy
          Ford will pay their loans back with interest (unlike many of the other recipients of DOE loans). The DOE loans they recieved went towards tooling for advanced powertrain vehicles. If they didn't get those loans they'd be doing more than fine, they just might not be as far along with vehicles like the C-Max plug-in and Electric Focus.
      godwhomismike
      • 1 Year Ago
      After watching that commercial, I didn't want a Ram. However, I thought how I want to leave the IT field and become a farmer instead.
      Willie
      • 1 Year Ago
      "Haters gonna hate..."
      car-a-holic
      • 1 Year Ago
      So let me get this; you live in America, and generally share an improved standard of living versus the rest of of world. This is in part made possible by the entrepreneurial, froniter pioneer and hard- work yields reward ethos on which these commercials are based. Having said that, it seems many of you are disgusted by an advitisement that pays homage to that symbolism and imagery. So your lifestyle, job and community are intimately intertwined with the machine that was produced by the real tangibles behind that symbolism; and yet you despise it. In the time in which your enemies were vanquished in WWII and on the back of a lagacy machine, the Jeep; and on the backs of those who fed those industrial revolutionists and yet many still today; I honor you now. Thank you jeep and dodge for helping stitch together the fabric of our generations using cloth made of our shared culture. That is the best calling of a company carrying its entrepreneurial legacy and duty forward. And yes haters there are still farmers who are not corporate cargill or otherwise. Get your back straight and go bezerk liberal elsewhere-we're all sold out of that brainwashing here.
      Chris
      • 1 Year Ago
      What I find strange is that the same folks that are on here criticizing Chrysler for its ads and donations are the same folks who support the bailout, and I'm not just making a general statement as I recognize names from previous posts. So, to make a long story short, Chrysler, a company that was bailed out by the US government, is now being lambasted for giving something back. Does anyone else not find that a little ironic? In short, I'm getting somewhat of a mixed message here.
      Claud
      • 1 Year Ago
      Outstanding..............................Beautiful farm in picture BTW......
      Hoale
      • 1 Year Ago
      some people are sheep
    • Load More Comments