For reasons that don’t make complete sense today, in 1956 Packard spun off its junior Clipper product line as a separate, stand-alone brand.
Introduced in 1941, the Clipper served as a junior model in the Packard line in 1941-42, 1946-47, and 1953-55. That changed for 1956 when Studebaker-Packard president James J. Nance decided to relaunch the Clipper name as a separate, stand-alone brand at the company. It was a curious move from a number of angles, not the least of in the timing. By that time the once-proud company was on the ropes, and 1956 proved to be the final year for Packard as a Detroit carmaker. It seems doubtful that the Clipper brand realignment would have made any difference either way.
Nance’s concern—that Clipper was cannibalizing Packard sales and discounting the value of the Packard brand—was certainly a valid one. The 1956 Packard and Clipper are remarkably similar cars. While the Packard featured a longer wheelbase at 127 inches versus 122 inches for the Clipper, the platforms were otherwise the same. And all the important Packard features, including Torsion Level Ride and the Ultramatic transmission with electric push-button control, were also available on the Clipper.
The most obvious differences between Packard and Clipper came down to trim and badging, with a stylized wooden ship’s wheel serving as the Clipper’s brand logo. The ’56 Clipper’s distinctive taillamps are worthy of mention, too, soon becoming a favorite among the custom car crowd. The ’56 Clipper wore no Packard badging initially, but Nance later relented and a small Packard emblem was added to the deck lid.
Packard dealers were required to sign a separate franchise agreement in order to sell the Clipper line in 1956, and meanwhile, Studebaker retailers were given the opportunity to take on the Clipper franchise as well. (It’s unclear how many Studebaker dealers took up the offer.) In hindsight, the Clipper brand relaunch seems like a pointless exercise, as both Packard and Clipper production at the Conner Avenue plant in Detroit were shut down for good in July of 1956. When Packard production resumed at the Studebaker plant in South Bend, Indiana for the 1957 model year, the Packard and Clipper brands were reunited, in a matter of speaking. All the Studebaker-based Packards manufactured in 1957 were marketed under Packard Clipper name.
This is similar to Continental and Imperial becoming separate brands. Supposedly. Does it really matter and do consumers care at all?
Well, those were supposed to be on the top, hyper-luxury, and clipper was suppposed to be the ‘cheap’ brand. I can’t speak for consumers, but I believe they don’t much care, don’t know what car brands “stand for” and wouldn’t even agree if you told them. The fact that GMC exists, and the prices they can charge, is a strong argument against what I believe. I would say you’ll find plenty of MBA’s that say brand is all that matters. That seems to me like a Jedi mind trick for dumber people. So I don’t know.
The MBA mentality has wrecked many corporations over the years, and the MBA’s still are. They ae taught to look after themselves ONLY, and will sell off valuable sectors of a business so as to make that years bottom line look good, all the while a good portion of that bottom line number goes into the MBA pocket as a larger bonus. Eventually the busness fails, but the MBA walks off with millions in their posket, laughng all the way ! Many things Packard did wouldn’t make sense today , but they were wrecked by the same short sighted think that went into GM having to beg for government bailouts a few years ago.
Would this be more akin to what happened when Nash launched the Rambler model… and then Rambler became a make, rather than a model? I think this was a response to that… “Compacts”, low-budget makes/models, were the talk of the town in the late ‘50s, and seen as serious competition for the “senior” makes/models, as well as a bandwagon everyone was clamoring to get on. Chrysler would soon be launching Valiant… as a stand-alone make and dealer network.
Poor management, intentionally or not, destroyed many great brands. Human greed knows no bounds, and ignorance is far more widespread than commonly thought.
Nance should have stuck to selling refrigerators. A once proud marque destroyed.