Re: What SINGLE factor MOST contributed to the demise of Packard?

Posted by Tim Cole On 2015/3/1 11:14:38

Unanswerable question?

I don't think so. I concur with Turnquist that the depression killed the ultra-high end market and the fat margins that went with it.

Packard's equity position never improved above the 1929 level. The junior cars were using excess capacity available due to the collapse of high priced sales.

So after the investment in the 110/120 the company did not have the money to create new technology.

Granted they could have done better with marketing because they assumed everybody in the world wanted a Packard and that everybody loved that grille.

They were offered a Nash merger early on and turned it down.

And there was this Free Mason stuff. If that is true, it's no wonder they went bust. Any business that makes being a crackpot a requirement of advancement can't succeed. I'm inclined to believe the Mason stuff is true because people I have known with relatives that worked for Packard said the management was weird with a lot of "behind the scenes" activity.

After the Twin-Six Packard never had a product that truly differentiated it from the rest of the world. The Single Eight was a rationalization of the car market and, even before that, dealers needed a cheaper model to sell so Packard turned out the Single Six. That in itself is the writing on the wall for Packard.

So in the end I think Packard management just plain sucked.

I worked for a corporation where I was doing financial models. The models indicated the unit was going to hemmorage over a billion dollars. The only thing management cared about was punishing talent, obstructing the facts, and playing office politics. The people responsible for those losses are still out there losing tons of money for their employers and getting paid more than ever. The notion that capitalism is a meritocracy is as crackpot as the Free Masons. I learned that the hard way.