Oh, I agree with you. I hope no one got the impression I thought their
marketing was good. I think it would be hard to argue that. I think it
was poor.
I just think that "bad sales" is a relative term. In comparison to
Caddy, yes, Imperial sales were bad. But when compared to what the
other divisions of Chrysler were doing relative to their competition for
most of the 60s, Imperial was doing about the same. (That is, to say,
pulling up the rear.)
I finally got ahold of that Collectible Automobile article. (Stuff
takes longer to reach us here in the boonies.) I haven't read it all,
but what I did read irritated me in its doom & gloom perspective. I
don't like seeing Imperial interpreted through the failure lens, if you
know what I mean.
One thing that I don't recall if you mentioned or not, but I think it
may have something to do with Imperial's lack of success, was the name
itself. Although I like the name, and most of us probably do, it lacks
a strong consonant sound like the "K" sound in Cadillac and
Continental. I'm not saying you need to have that to have a successful
name for a car, but, to use the example you used, Lexus-- there is a
word with a strong sound right in the middle: "X." Imperial is a very
smooth sound . . . maybe good for a margarine, but a car? Hmm. You
also have to wonder about the connotations of the word: empire, world
domination, etc.
I don't know if this made all THAT much difference. Maybe this is
pretty off the wall speculation, but you never know. The fact that so
many people slip and call my car an "Impala"-- even after I've corrected
them 100 times-- may have been some of the problem.
Mark
IMPSRULE@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Hi Mark & All:
>
> Glad everybody is writing with their varied
> perspectives. Nothing beats a good (friendly)
> discussion!
>
> Say Mark...? Your comment about Elvis buying Caddy's
> for his mother does say a lot. It says even more when
> you take into account that Chrysler Corporation had a
> contract with his studio, Paramount Pictures, which
> featured all manner of Chryslers and Imperials in most
> of his films! Furthermore, one of his most remembered
> scenes from his early hit films is in the 1957
> film "Loving You", in which he is seen in several
> scenes touring the southern countryside in a lovingly
> photographed 1957 Imperial Crown Convertible (white
> with a red leather interior). Upon Elvis' arrival
> back home, one of the characters in the film whistles
> at the car and says something to the effect of 'the
> space ships have landed!'
>
> Cadillac's hold on the American public was (and is)
> strong. But I still contend that if work-a-day Toyota
> can successfully campaign a luxury car company
> (Lexus), that proves that it most certainly can be
> done. That mighty Chrysler Corporation was 'somewhat
> less successful' with the Imperial Division - even
> when the car itself was the 'darling' of the motoring
> press for a decade) - that says to me that there MUST
> have been a problem with the marketing effort.
>
> As another IML member mentioned, Chrysler was not
> successful in turning the Imperial into a 'must-have'
> item. Luckily, we 'Imperialists' have a lot more on
> the ball than the American public did in the fifties
> and sixties and we 'must have' our Imperials! LOL!
>
> Jim Byers
>
> --- Original Message ---
> From: Mark McDonald <tomswift@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: IML: Marketing of Imperials
>
> >And of course it didn't help that Elvis was buying
> his mama and all his
> >friends Cadillacs, not Imperials . . . when you're
> facing that kind of
> >"marketing" it's hard to beat.
> >
> >
> >
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network