This ought to generate some opinions...<GGG>
While admiring Hudson friend Larry Kennedy's (his wife Sue's, actually) newly-restored 1954 Hudson Super Wasp convertible last week, a few adult beverages got the brain cells in reflective/speculative mode.
Hudson spent a relatively enormous amount of money (for them) to update the 1948-1953 Hudson to "contemporize" its appearance for the 1954 model year. They did an admirable job IMHO; the cars looked sharp and competitive for the 1954 market.
Ditto Studebaker for the 1964 model year; one final, extensive redo of the 1953 body / 1963 "greenhouse" to make a car that was genuinely fresh, crisp, and contemporary to do battle in the 1964 market.
In each case, though, the effort was for naught; in effect, those respective model years (1954 and 1964) were the swan songs for each marque. Sure, they soldiered on in one form or another for a couple more years...but let's be honest with ourselves; for all practical purposes, it was over at the end of 1954 for Hudson and 1964 for Studebaker.
Given market realties, it would appear obvious that the product itself was not to blame in 1954 or 1964...which is to say, the skids were greased so thoroughly by that time that the inevitable could not be avoided no matter what the companies did with the product.
So a legitimate academic question is this: Would it have been better in the long run, preserving capital for whatever was to become of the company's (and shareholder's) financial bones, if they had simply rearranged a few piece of trim on the 1953 Hudson for 1954, and a few pieces of trim on the 1963 Studebaker for 1964? An enormous amount of money would have been saved in each case, yet the benefit of hindsight (let's not kid ourselves; we have that impossible advantage over the two company's product planners and marketers at this point) suggests the outcome would have been about the same.
Could a good argument be made that each company would have been better off(!) as they exited the business had they not invested heavily in the nice remakes for their resepctive swan song year(s)? Not that I'm suggesting either should have done that, for there is "no way" they could have made such a call so far in advance of having to make product plans for 1954 and 1964.
Besides, I'll admit I'm like most folks and genuinely enjoy Brooks Stevens' wonderful execution of the primary 1964 Studebaker product line! <GGG> BP
While admiring Hudson friend Larry Kennedy's (his wife Sue's, actually) newly-restored 1954 Hudson Super Wasp convertible last week, a few adult beverages got the brain cells in reflective/speculative mode.
Hudson spent a relatively enormous amount of money (for them) to update the 1948-1953 Hudson to "contemporize" its appearance for the 1954 model year. They did an admirable job IMHO; the cars looked sharp and competitive for the 1954 market.
Ditto Studebaker for the 1964 model year; one final, extensive redo of the 1953 body / 1963 "greenhouse" to make a car that was genuinely fresh, crisp, and contemporary to do battle in the 1964 market.
In each case, though, the effort was for naught; in effect, those respective model years (1954 and 1964) were the swan songs for each marque. Sure, they soldiered on in one form or another for a couple more years...but let's be honest with ourselves; for all practical purposes, it was over at the end of 1954 for Hudson and 1964 for Studebaker.
Given market realties, it would appear obvious that the product itself was not to blame in 1954 or 1964...which is to say, the skids were greased so thoroughly by that time that the inevitable could not be avoided no matter what the companies did with the product.
So a legitimate academic question is this: Would it have been better in the long run, preserving capital for whatever was to become of the company's (and shareholder's) financial bones, if they had simply rearranged a few piece of trim on the 1953 Hudson for 1954, and a few pieces of trim on the 1963 Studebaker for 1964? An enormous amount of money would have been saved in each case, yet the benefit of hindsight (let's not kid ourselves; we have that impossible advantage over the two company's product planners and marketers at this point) suggests the outcome would have been about the same.
Could a good argument be made that each company would have been better off(!) as they exited the business had they not invested heavily in the nice remakes for their resepctive swan song year(s)? Not that I'm suggesting either should have done that, for there is "no way" they could have made such a call so far in advance of having to make product plans for 1954 and 1964.
Besides, I'll admit I'm like most folks and genuinely enjoy Brooks Stevens' wonderful execution of the primary 1964 Studebaker product line! <GGG> BP
Comment