Packard Forum Index » General

https://packardinfo.com/xoops/html/uploads/photos/11696.jpg

To, this is an unusually BS filled ad (that looks like 1917 as well). I can readily see anyone with common sense snickering at it and getting a negative impression of the company.

What is your take on this?

Quote:

Is this 1953 ad - item 11696 - in your link the one you refer to?

As I make this reply it is one of several ad pages to the right under recent photos.

The link works fine for; did it not work for you?

What caught my eye was the carefully sculpted (I assume) nothingness about the ad, somewhat like miracle ingredient X-42....

The really neat earlier ADS OFTEN SAID NOTHING BUT CLEARLY CONVEYED CLASS AS SEEN BY THE ADVERTISING DEPARTMENT. This one just seems like complete vapor, even by advertising standards.

Hmm? I have a modicum of common sense and I'm not snickering.
What do you want them to say? We are still running the straight-8 because we've developed it into an extremely smooth powerplant that is the equal of any V8 on the market?
Do you expect them to hire the same ad agency as GM with their available money to hire the top ad agency, who would then work only for GM???
If you really want to read all that zoooom - vrooom hype then buy a Caddy or Buick and be happy.
I do know that our 1952 Packard Mayfair was a comfortable, luxurious ride and it beat the snot out of a '53 Olds Holiday in a quarter mile - TWICE!
Do you have a comparable GM or Chrysler ad that doesn't project itself in glowing terms or claim that you will only be satisfied when you finally buy their product?
Did you ever read a Cadillac ad extolling the virtues of their three-main bearing V8 which was found along the roadside and showing the owner with his thumb sticking out??
No - I didn't see that ad either.
Did you enjoy the Camel cigarette ads of the time stating that 9 out of 10 doctors smoked Camels?
I'm sorry you have such a negative impression of the company whose product you have chosen to drive. Did you mention something about common sense?

The lack of "sizzle" and high-quality graphics in this ad may have to do mostly with where it was meant to be placed. I'd guess it was destined for the lower-budget readership of popular pulp magazines or newspapers (note that it contains only "line art" and type--no halftone screens that get muddied up on cheaper paper stock). It also mentions twice that the Clipper is priced "only $250 more than the 'cheapest' cars" to entice the Chevrolet and Ford buyers to move up. The Clipper is also shown favorably above the senior, so the reader can see how similar they will look to senior owners when they cruise the boulevard.

Advertising like this is not "highbrow" but it can be effective. Simple layout, lots of copy, and a kind of "look like a rich guy without spending too much dough" message.

Nance hated this kind of advertising, and hated the agency, but the move in toward the "carriage trade" 4-color stuff in the high profile "slick" magazines for '55 and '56 could have hurt Packard's ability to stretch the ad budget and run more frequent ads for better overall exposure. Marketing is a tricky beast.

Explain BS please. What would you have put into the piece? I think we must be careful not to apply too much of our 2012 thoughts, values and culture into the automotive buyer's mind of that era. Apples and oranges I think. I love the Packard marque and from my research and readings; they did the best they could with what they had.

As a child of the 50's I can assure you that the Packard ad is no more or less hot air than the other automakers of 1953. Check out the gist of the other ads (some are truly lame):

Chrysler - "Highway fashion"
Dodge - "The Action car for active Americans"
DeSoto - "The distinguished DeSoto"
Ford - "Worth more when you buy it, worth more when you sell it"
Ford - "Standard of the American road"
Mercury - "...The greatest yet"
Lincoln - "Motoring for those who want to forget yesterday"
Lincoln - "Powered for moderns on the move"
Lincoln - "Designed for every driver in the family"
Chevrolet - "More people buy Chevrolets than any other car!"
Oldsmobile - "Rocket engine"
Pontiac - "Solid choice of solid citizens!"
Buick - "The greatest Buicks in 50 great years"
Buick - "The beauty is just the beginning"
Cadillac - "It will add to your happiness"
Hudson - "Twin H-Power ... packs real punch into your driving range"
Studebaker - "Excitingly different! Studebakers's European look!"
Willys - "Aero Willys gives you big room inside, big view outside"
Kaiser - "Drive the Kaiser...America's most beautiful car...winner of 14 international awards!"

I must admit I remember vividly the full page glossy color ads that Cadillac was putting out in 1953 featuring the Cadillac crest as executed by the leading jewelers of the day... very elegant.

Wow, Randy! Take Offense Much?

I think Pat was just saying that theis particular ad and actually I noticed the same thing a few hours ago with This one:
https://packardinfo.com/xoops/html/modules/myalbum/photo.php?lid=11697&cid=93

That the advertising itself isn't up to the standards that Packard had previously set for itself. See the 20's and 30's ads. They extolled some of the specific virtues of the models themselves, the technological and safety innovations that set Packard apart from the competitors. True that in this time, the focus was on Price, Price and Price, but in this specific advertisement, they're speaking about the car in such General terms, one could almost insert any name in place of Packard and still have the same result.
Packard Brakes instead of Easamatic?
No mention of Ultramatic Transmission Specifically?
I could go on, but I don't need to. Read some of those earlier years' ad copy and compare.
I'd like to think that the American public wasn't so caveman like back in 1952-53 that they couldn't appeciate quality and value as opposed to pure price.

I believe the main point of the ad was to launch the first salvo in making the public aware that Packard was trying to separate their price spread into two distinct categories so that the prestige of a Patrician would not be diluted by cheaper cars that were so necessary for volume. This was one of Nance's top priorities.

By 56 a Patrician was widely separated from a Clipper Deluxe. Compare that to say a 48 Super 8 that sold at Caddy prices and a 48 Eight. If the Eight has a couple of accessories, it can not be told from the more expensive car without a very close look. But every 7 year old could tell it was a Caddy, not a Buick.

Have been learning quite a lot from Robert Neal's new book on the 48-50. Had not realized that the Supers were to be in the general Caddy price range, and the Customs were actually above that.

I drove a 50 Super through high school and college and knew it like that back of my hand. Looked at Caddies at car shows and was convinced from my semi-dismal interior appointments that my car had to have been much cheaper than a low-line Caddy. Not.

As 55PackardGuy suggests, I don't think that ad was destined for the Saturday Evening Post. There is the box that suggests you should go to the car show to see the new Caribbean and Formal Sedan. Since it doesn't mention which car show or where the car show is located, I'd say the ad was for local consumption.

In 1953 Packard was putting out ads as glossy as the competition. This one was in the Saturday Evening Post.

Attach file:

---

  (128.41 KB)