Hi All:
First off, the following opinions about the recent
Collectable Automobile article are just that - my
opinions (so feel free to contribute your own
perspective, but no angry personal emails, please…
LOL). In spite of a few discrepancies such as that
regarding the real wood veneer, I’m elated about the
lengthy, and largely positive article about the 67-68
Imperials in the October, 2002 issue of Collectable
Automobile.
Like Mike and Andy mentioned in their thoughtful
observations, it does seem that most articles do ‘miss
the point’ about Imperials. However, I think writer
Jeffrey Godshall is largely pretty fair to our beloved
marque. Let us remember that he is currently Senior
Design Manager for Product Design at Daimler-Chrysler,
and a long-time champion of Imperials (back when the
old car press seldom printed anything about Imperials,
many of the handful of articles that appeared were by
Godshall).
In our passion for this great nameplate, we also
should be realistic: overall, the Imperial line didn’t
sell well. Sadly, American culture focuses on sales
as a direct reflection of merits (the assumption being
that people make purchasing decisions based on whether
something is good or not). But QUALITY is something
quite separate from the myriad of societal factors
that drive SALES. Witness the high CD sales of
Eminem…. (LOL)! I think the part that comes across
as being less than flattering about the cars really
pertains to the marketing of the Imperial Division by
Chrysler Corporation. Sadly, I would have to agree.
>From it’s ‘cannibalistic’ history of pitting divisions
against each other (witness Dodge being permitted to
sell the Dodge Dart for the price as a Plymouth….
let alone Chrysler being allowed to move down-market
and kill the DeSoto Division…), it is my opinion that
Chrysler Corp. made some serious marketing missteps
when it decided to create the Imperial Division to
compete against Cadillac, Lincoln and (initially)
Packard.
Andy mentioned that he felt that “Chrysler had
slightly different plans for the Imperial.” I agree.
I believe that with the Imperial, Chrysler Corporation
created what we would now call a “luxury sport
sedan”. Unfortunately, they made this decision before
there was a substantial market for such cars in the
U.S. And that was, from a business standpoint, a
mistake. It’s not that the Imperial was bad – it’s
just that not enough people wanted such a car… yet.
The motoring press consistently selected the Imperial
as the most ‘competent’ luxury car in the American
market. It’s not that Chrysler ‘could not’ produce a
more ‘tame’ luxo-barge: they CHOSE not to. But in an
age when the ‘standard’ was Cadillac’s whisper-quiet,
floaty ride, I think the average luxury car buyer
perceived Imperial’s ‘athleticism’ as a deficiency.
Secondly (and again, this is just my opinion) Chrysler
Corporation made serious mistakes in marketing the
Imperial from the moment it became a separate marque
in 1955. Then as now, what sells a luxury cars is
IMAGE. Going back to a landmark book called “The
Hidden Persuaders” (Vance Packard, David McKay Co.,
Inc., 1957., NYC), countless studies have shown that
the luxury car buyer wants other drivers to recognize
immediately that they have purchased a ‘superior
automobile’. This is most successfully done via two
methods: a) STYLING, and b) BRAND IDENTITY.
A. STYLING (Exclusivity & Continuity):
1) Exclusivity – It’s a well known fact that Chrysler
Corp. designed the elegant ‘split grille’ expressly
for the Imperial line, and then ‘stole’ it for use on
the Chrysler 300. If, for example, they had used
blacked-out mesh within the twin openings (instead of
the Imperial’s ‘toothy’ egg-crate pattern), they might
have been able to pull it off. But by lifting the
entire ‘egg-crate’ grille directly from the Imperial,
Chrysler Corp. immediately began to erode their own
efforts to establish Imperial’s exclusivity.
2) Continuity -- Design continuity is key to
establishing a luxury marque with the public.
Although it took years of commitment for Ford Motor
Company to reap the rewards, in establishing the ’61
slab-sided look as Lincoln’s theme, they realized that
design continuity was CENTRAL to the long-term health
of the Lincoln Division. Ideally, Virgil Exner should
have found a way to continue with some variation on
Imperial’s much-admired split-grille theme into
the ‘Forward Look’ Era. Indeed, the front end of the
1957 showed signs of the ‘dual’ theme in the dramatic
bi-plane bumpers. This striking flourish could have
been made into a very distinctive ‘reference’ to
the ‘dual’ theme. But, in an effort to save money,
the bi-plane bumpers were dropped after one year.
True, Imperial did achieve some degree of continuity
with the fins and, especially, the various
incarnations of the ‘microphone’ taillights of 1955 –
1962. But Cadillac had proven with it’s famed ‘dollar
grin’ that the front end was what made the all-
important first impression. And in this regard, after
1956, Imperial grilles were all over the map (very
attractively so, but all over the map nonetheless).
Let’s take a tour, shall we?: fine-textured bars
(’57); sleek modern rectangles (’58); bold
projectile ‘teeth’ (’59); early-aero/ ‘cow-catcher’
(’60); classic ‘coffin-nose’ (’61); back to a split
grille (’62); back to rectangles (’63). This offers
us collectors a delightful range of Exner’s talent to
chose from today, but it did not win customers when it
counted.
3) BRAND IDENTITY - Who would have thought 15 years
ago that anybody would spend $50,000 on a luxury
Toyota product. Lexus has succeeded because their
marketers have been unrelenting and steadfast in
giving Lexus a separate and distinct identity both in
design and marketing. Rarely if ever does print ad
for Lexus make any mention whatsoever of there being a
connection to Toyota. As the Imperial had been a
Chrysler model before becoming a separate make,
Chrysler Corporation needed to completely ‘divorce’
the name Imperial from it’s close association with
Chrysler.
In my opinion, the most glaring miscalculation was in
introducing the 1955-56 Imperials with no series names
(ie: ‘Plaza’, ‘Savoy,’ ‘Belvedere’, and ‘Fury’). In
an era when cars were defined by evocative series
names, to introduce a division with no series’ (ie:
Imperial ‘Sovereign’. ‘Monarch,’ or ‘Regency’…) was a
major mistake. Earlier, I mentioned the mistake of
appropriating the 1955 Imperial grille for the
Chrysler 300. Taking this a step further, I’ve always
felt that Chrysler Corporation would have been better
served if the Chrysler 300 had been marketed as the
Imperial “Three Hundred”. If Chrysler had marketed an
Imperial “Three Hundred” as an Eldorado-fighter (one
with REAL sports-car capabilities), it would have
accomplished two things. First, it would have added
credibility and prestige to the entire Imperial line
from the outset – giving the new marque a truly
distinctive, championship-calibre product offering.
It also would have better-established the 300 as
a ‘prestige’ performance car (and justified it’s
already high price), rather than it being a really
expensive, well appointed ‘ executive hot-rod’ wearing
the ‘mid-priced’ Chrysler badge. In my opinion,
Chrysler Corp. missed a real opportunity by ‘waffling’
very early in it’s commitment to establishing the
Imperial as a separate luxury division.
Anybody who knows me knows that I’m an “Imperialist”
through and through. However, I think we collectors
need to recognize that the very qualities that we
admire in post-war Imperials were completely at odds
with the tastes and desires of the vast majority of
the American luxury car buyers in the 1950’s through
the mid-‘70’s. And therein lies the magic of these
great machines – Imperial’s were quite literally ‘too
good’ for mass consumption! As hobbyists, I think
that’s something, to take quite a bit of pride in!
Jim Byers, W, DC
Currently I.S.O.:
1960 LeBaron Southampton or Crown Coupe
(Condition #2 or 3)
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network