Re: Ok, I'm calling your bluff. Show me how Packards were "better".

Posted by Tim Cole On 2012/7/9 19:26:02

Well, I totally agree with Su8 that Packard advertising had problems. I don't find much of it compelling. The only problem is that what I think might be a good ad comes off to somebody else as completely weird. That is where statistics and focus studies come into play. Something that wasn't used much, if any, back then. However, most Cadillac ads from the same period leave me uninspired as well.

Some of the Packard ads like that "Wizards of Aahs" stuff reminds me of Disney and their statement that "Every child's favorite was Mickey Mouse." What? I hated Mickey Mouse. Yet, somehow if you make outlandish statements with a straight face repeatedly they are supposed to come true. At least that's they way it works in politics.

I think a close look at Harley-Davidson might be instructive. When I was a kid I had cycles, but I never liked Harleys. In fact I thought they were junk. Even an antique like the T120 was way better than any HD. But look at Harley today? Somehow they figured out how to get all these people wanting HD motorcycles. So much so that even Japan had to build their own V-twin facsimiles. If Packard could have figured that one out then where would they be?

And don't get me started on the car market today. Name one car that is being built as pure reliable transportation? The closest I can get is the Nissan Sunny (Versa in the USA). Overseas they are all over the roads. They are boring as hell, but they get you where you want to go. Yet the motoring press acts as if using a car to go someplace is a really weird idea. It didn't work for the little Willys, but at least the Nissan Sunny has five continents besides ours to sell cars in.