Packard Forum Index » General

Guess I'm just denser than usual but still haven't made the connection to "that looks like 1917 as well" to the ad in question.

As to the quality or BS factor -- as was mentioned by another poster, believe Nance himself wasn't too thrilled with the direction. Seem to recall reading he changed agencies once or twice during his tenure because the ads or the campaigns were not to his liking.

Looks like a newspaper type ad to me aimed more at the Clipper buyer. There is more of the written word for the Clipper than for the Packard. It does differentiate the Packard from the Clipper which the company was trying to do at the time. It also mentions the two newest features of the car, power brakes, new for 1952, and power steering, new for 1953. Maybe should have mentioned Ultramatic but it had been offered since 1949. As far as "Big Car Value for Medium Car Cost" it was probably truer than it should have been. Many of the features you could get on the Packard you could get on the Clipper as an option. Including the 327 engine. Probably not enough differentiation between the Packard and the Clipper in hindsight. But I am somewhat biased as concerns the 53 Clipper for obvious reasons. Considering the auto advertising of the time I have seen worse.
Ken

Sadly, the title of the ad the Rev. JDKC posted, above the picture of the elegant young couple, betrays Packard's fall and desperation:

"America's new choice in fine cars."

From at least 1912 through 1947 there'd be no need for the adjective "new," and "America's" would've been "The world's..."

Actually, I find little if any of Packard advertising very compelling.

Some of the nonsense in the 1930's was just plain dumb. How about this gem? "The cost of owning a Packard is just pennies per mile more than the lowest price cars" That is just completely ridiculous. And that tacky gateway stuff? Yuk!

Their best ads were for the six because they talked about the car. And I guess the six was probably their best all around car.

When I have talked to non-car people about Packard these are what I heard most:

"Oh we had a Packard. It couldn't go around the block without stopping at a gas station"

or this "Oh Packard? They built snob cars"

Now the other day I saw a 55 Cadillac coming down the road and I have to say I thought the thing ludicrous. Ugly. But the OHV Cadillac and the Hydramatic killed Packard. Notwithstanding the fact that the 55-56 Patrician was actually faster than the Cadillac.

And let me add one more thing. For years I knew an old time car guy who started out with Packards. Well, some of the car club politics from a few select Packard collectors really got to him. He sold his Packards and switched to Cadillac.

The same issue in other magazines or folders.


picture sources

#1 ebay
#2 www.mclellansautomotive.com

Attach file:

---

  (17.87 KB)


  (29.15 KB)

Small ads published in the local press seem to attract female attention.

Packard advertising and marketing was lame especially compared to GM. This isn't necessarily obvious, and did not necessarily hurt Packard in the short term but it sure did in the long term.

Quote:

HH,

Following is the quote that I was remembering when I made that post;

Here is what Nance had to say about D'Arcy's work in 1956:

"In an April 25th [1956] memo, Nance noted: 'The proof of the June advertisement on the Clipper just pased over my desk. It is one of the weakest, most ineffectual ads I have eve seen. It literally has nothing; no selling copy and poor art.'"

Ouch.

Apparently Packard changed fom Young and Rubicon (their longtime ad agency) to Maxon in 1953, then to Ruthrauff & Ryan for one year, 1955, then to D'Arcy.

Also mentioned is that the "New Choice in Fine Cars" theme was short-lived and that "1955 really had no theme at all." (Not surprising after switching agencies three times in three years.)

IMO, What Packard lacked was any emphasis on smart marketing using the media available (their T.V. stuff was just as bad, apparently). This is a common pitfall of companies that believe they have an unassailable brand, and that they engineer and build such fine products that they will" sell themselves." Not a good idea in the mass-marketed automobile industry of the '50s.

NOTE: Quotes and background information from: "Packard, the History of the Motor Car and the Company" Automobile Quartelry, Beverly Rae Kimes ed, p 394

Archbishop O'Toole-- oh, um, pardon me, JW --- formal salutations just come naturally on such an ecclesiastical site as PackardInfo.com ----

---i mean Dr. O'Toole, couldn't agree with you more about Packard's advertising, compared with GM (& others) being "lame." Packard's early ads are fine, as are their theme ads throughout the '20s. The early '30s, at least through '34, had such gems as Peter Helck's impressive "Hush" for the '33 Twelve.

But from the late '30s on, Packard's ads, including those for the seniors, became increasingly more bush league, trying too hard. I agree with Drs. Cole, 55Guy, and others above. Some of the 1940 ads are embarrassing, downright corny, trying too hard to reach Mr. and Mrs. Mainstreet, like a silver spoon politician campaigning in a pair of new Levis.

And the bathtub ad headed "The Wizard of Ahs." Really?
Ugh. Gag me with a spoon. I'm sure. Grody to the max.

Sad. The cars deserved better, at least 'til the bathtubs and '50s also-rans.