(UPDATED FROM 8/13/2021)
The Chrysler brand attempted to shake off the trauma of the early-60s with a fresh new persona. In 1965 its product line was dramatically restyled. Meanwhile, advertising adopted a much more expressive approach in both graphics and narrative.
This is why Chrysler’s brochures from 1965 to 1969 offer an interesting case study of an American automaker attempting to revive its premium-priced lineup during a time of rapid societal change.
A page from a 1964 Chrysler brochure (see below) shows how the brand emphasized the practical attributes of its cars. That was in sync with the Chrysler’s styling, which had unusually no-nonsense lines that may have been inspired by the 1961 Lincoln Continental.
For 1965 all of that changed. Chryslers were bigger, glitzier and more powerful — and so was the advertising. One of the most obvious changes was that a feature-based sales pitch was discarded in favor of appeals to emotion.
One way this showed up in advertisements and brochures was the increasing prominence of women. In general, U.S. automakers during the second half of the 1960s tended to plaster female models all over their advertising, but the Chrysler Corporation appeared to have been the leader of this parade.
Also see ‘1953-70 Chevrolet Corvette ads gingerly showed changing gender roles’
For example, the 1967 Buick brochure — which put a woman rather than a car on its cover — would appear to have been inspired by the Chrysler brand’s approach in 1965.
Of the Chrysler Corporation’s brands, Dodge used women in the most provocative ways. As a case in point, the 1966-67 “Dodge Rebellion” ad campaign was dominated by cheesecake poses of Pamela “Dodge Girl” Austin armed with civil war weapons such as a cannon (Ridder, 2021).
The Chrysler brand went for a more understated and suave look, but you can find models on virtually every page of brochures published during the second half of the 1960s.
Most of the images objectify women for the benefit of the male gaze. However, as we will see in a moment, in 1966 Chrysler also attempted to appeal to women car buyers — in a cringeworthy way.
1965: Chrysler’s brochure goes Vogue
The cover of the 1965 Chrysler brochure looks like Vogue magazine. Pictures of cars are nowhere to be found.
Turn the page and you find your first car — and are asked whether it is the most beautiful Chrysler ever built.
A dark-colored New Yorker? It looks like the kind of car a conservative, middle-aged dentist would drive. What else you got?
Apparently this family is enjoying its Newport convertible. Or perhaps just the parents. Is that because this is the most beautiful Chrysler ever built? Or is something else going on?
The copy writers of this brochure seemed to be embarrassed about mentioning practical features. Right up front they pointed out that for 1965 Chrysler engineers cared “as much about things that please people as they do about crankshafts and solenoids.”
Also see ‘1965-68 GM big cars: The end of different strokes’
For example, Chrysler added “240 pounds more heft” to make its cars “more solid.” And, by the way, there was even more back-seat room for cute dogs and kids.
1966: Why would you think when you can feel?
This year’s brochure took a somewhat different approach by trying to present Chrysler as both youthful and prestigious. The cover is pure white except for the following message:
Open up the brochure and you find another equally spare page . . . except for the addition of a woman hanging from the letter “g.”
Was Chrysler serious about trying to target women car buyers? If so, does that mean the rest of the brochure was supposed to make them feel great? All over?
Also see ‘1967-70 Firebird shows limits of ad illustrations’
That’s quite an assignment. Chrysler presumably gave it the old college try with illustrations reminiscent of those used by Pontiac during much of the 1960s (Fitzpatrick, 2018). The images are decent but not spectacular.
The copy writers may have assumed that even if women didn’t get the tingles by gazing upon the 1966 Chryslers, they would have been convinced that they should get that feeling. Then again, perhaps this gambit backfired because readers saw through the sexist manipulation.
1967: Taking charge in a hip but dignified way
Chrysler continued to heavily use illustrations in 1967, but they had more of a pop culture vibe. A more commanding tag line was also used: “Take charge.” No acknowledgement of women’s lib here — Chrysler appeared to be targeting men who sought to rise to their full alpha potential.
The colored-in car on the cover was a little cheesy, but the artwork inside the brochure had a more avant garde look than the previous year. There was also a greater emphasis on couples in suggestive poses. As with Chrysler’s ads, younger-looking women often adorned the arms of older-looking men.
Also see ‘1966-69 VIP: Why Plymouth couldn’t sell brougham’
Chrysler appears to have been trying to balance looking “with it” to the burgeoning youth culture while also being suitably dignified for its more “establishment” clientele.
The image at the top of this story is from a 1967 brochure. Somehow Chrysler’s mad men managed to make the rather bland bench seat on an entry-level Newport look like a happening place. Who knew?
By the same token, the young man below also drives a Newport, but he’s adventurous enough to fly a plane. Or at least dream of doing so . . . once he takes charge.
1968: Imagine moving in a most miraculous way
This year’s brochure switched from illustrations to photographs of unusually high quality. Consider the cover photo below, which has impeccable lighting and composition as well as an amazing story line. The female model could apparently walk on water. Even better: The car could drive on water! (Go here if you would like to learn more.)
The excitement continues throughout the brochure. Compare the New Yorker two-door hardtop below with the photo of the 1965 model near the beginning of this post. Which car looks more beautiful?
Also see ‘1968 Chrysler New Yorker: The peak of peak Chrysler?’
I would say the 1968 model. That’s significantly a function of the photo’s quality. Although the New Yorker two-door hardtop’s roofline looks better proportioned, the 1965 Chryslers had less ponderous side sheetmetal sculpting.
Now let’s see what the Chrysler marketeers can do with a station wagon — dominated by a view of the cargo area, no less. Notice the colors and composition of the photo below.
Also look at the background above the roofline. A female model is holding a shovel. What does she have in mind? Another pyramid, perhaps?
This year’s 300 may not have actually been Chrysler’s all-time sportiest car, but the photography makes it look like it.
A male driver appears to be showing his female companion that he can kick up some dust. Was she impressed? Or did she think he was acting like a 10 year old?
1969: Chrysler explores peak presumptuousness
If you can look past the sexism, the 1968 Chrysler brochure is one of the best produced by an American automaker during the 1960s. How do you top that? Short answer: Chrysler didn’t even try. Instead, the 1969 brochure has the distinct aroma of cost cutting.
To be fair, you might not expect that after viewing the cover, which has a well-composed photo. However, the tag line sets up the reader to be blown away by what they see inside. Can Chrysler deliver?
Welp, down here in the provinces we don’t do no lush photography no more. That’s been replaced by cheap illustrations. Chrysler slapped realistic car images — as opposed to artsy ones, like in the 1966-67 brochures — on a relatively solid-color background and called it a day. I suppose the illustrations deserve credit for not making the cars look longer and wider than they actually were. Even so, a decent photo picks up more visual nuance than all but the best illustrations.
Also see ‘The 1969-73 Chrysler wasn’t a disaster, but it wasn’t a success’
Consider the New Yorker four-door hardtop below. The illustration cheapens the rich texture of the grille and, in general, makes the car look more plebeian than an equivalent photo would in the previous year’s brochure. The aristocratic slice-of-life photos below the car fail to save the page.
The irony of Chrysler cheapening its advertising materials is that this occurred at the same time when its models were often the most expensive of the premium-priced brands.
As a case in point, the Encyclopedia of American Cars (auto editors of Consumer Guide (1993, 2006) lists the price of an entry-level 1969 Newport four-door sedan as $3,414, which was almost $200 higher than a Buick LeSabre or an Oldsmobile Delta 88.
Meanwhile, a 300 two-door hardtop was priced at $4,104, which was upwards of $200 more than a Wildcat Custom or a Delta 88 Royale. Only the New Yorker was priced slightly lower than some of the top-end versions of the Electra 225 and Ninety-Eight (go here for further discussion).
The 1969 brochure was not completely hopeless because Chrysler still used photographs of their seating options.
As in past years, a female model often posed with a seat. Alas, the above woman looks rather serious. Perhaps that’s because the bucket seat wasn’t all that comfortable. Or luxurious looking. Hey, has the era of decontenting begun yet?
Um, yeah. The early-70s were not Chrysler’s finest hour — for cars or brochures. But that’s another story.
NOTES:
This story was originally posted July 17, 2018, expanded on Aug. 13, 2021 and updated on March 15, 2023.
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Auto editors of Consumer Guide; 1993, 2006. Encyclopedia of American Cars. Publications International, Lincolnwood, IL.
- Fitzpatrick, Art; 2018. “Art Fitzpatrick: Portraits of Cars.” Accessed July 17.
- Ritter, Chris; 2021. “Dodge Rebellion.” Second Chance Garage. Accessed Aug. 12.
BROCHURES:
- oldcarbrochures.org: Buick (1967); Chrysler (1965-69); Dodge (1966)
This is an interesting analysis. These brochures were not produced in a cultural vacuum. Everything from the layout to the copy to the use of female models was a reflection of larger cultural trends.
For example, Chrysler Division’s two closest competitors – Buick and Oldsmobile – also alternated between the use of photos and artwork during this same period. And, as with the Chrysler brochures, the actual execution of the chosen theme varied greatly. Some years the chosen approach worked, and some years it didn’t. (I’ve always though that Oldsmobile’s full-line brochure, and most of the ads, for 1965 were real duds.)
Regarding the use of female models – this was during an era when movies and television were having a profound influence on popular culture. Almost every successful movie or television show featured an attractive actress to garner viewers. This carried over to ad campaigns. (The exception would have been war movies, given that women didn’t serve in actual combat in the wars likely to be depicted in movies and television shows of that time.)
Most television shows and movies were expected to feature at least one attractive young woman. And, to some extent, it worked. What do people remember about the otherwise standard 1960s sitcom, Petticoat Junction? The three beautiful young women bathing in the water tower during the opening credits. Which cast member of The Beverly Hillbillies do most people still remember today? Donna Douglas, the beautiful Elly May. Are people more likely to remember Agent 99 – aka Barbara Feldon – or Maxwell Smart himself from the sitcom Get Smart?
And on and on through Bewitched, I Dream of Jeannie, That Girl, The Mary Tyler Moore Show, Charlie’s Angels, both Bob Newhart shows and nighttime soaps. Naturally the car makers were going to pick up on this trend.
This also reflected an expectation that most actual buyers would be men. Aside from station wagons, very few cars were openly aimed at women during the 1960s. The exception would be the original Mustang. (Although the irony there was that the ads sent the message that plain librarians, secretaries and nurses would become bombshell beauties with a pick of handsome suitors, all by simply purchasing a Mustang.)
Studies have shown that attractive women are more likely to garner attention from both men AND women in commercials and advertisements. Studies have also shown that women do not object to the use of women in commercials or advertisements, as long as they are not portrayed in a sexual way. So while cultural changes will ensure that we will not likely see a 21st century version of the Dodge Rebellion campaign, the powerful attraction of female faces means that they will continue to be featured in brochures, advertisements and commercials for new vehicles.
These Chrysler brochures – like their Dodge counterparts – are artifacts of their time. Given the Chrysler brand’s upscale aspirations, and the stark fact that Chrysler buyers were likely to be older, the artwork and models reflected Madison Avenue’s version of the upper-middle class “good life.” There was also an assumption that Chrysler buyers were less interested in what Ned Jordan had deemed “mechanical chatter” than in style, size, prestige and comfort.
Dodge, meanwhile, was trying to “out hip” Pontiac and reach the youth market, so its campaigns prominently featured a very youthful Pam Austin (and then Joan Anita Parker for the 1968-69 Dodge Fever campaign) in go-go boots and more “form fitting” clothing. There was also more emphasis on actual performance, and hints about street racing that would be absolutely verboten today.
So well put that I don’t have a whole lot to add. As I was editing this story I found myself wondering what Dodge was trying to do with the “Dodge Rebellion” ad campaign. Of course, it had a certain confederate undertone. Were they partly trying to build their presence in the south? Let Pontiac corner the northern urbanites while Dodge focused on the more rural southern boy racers?
With the Dodge Rebellion advertisements, the division was trying to appeal to youth, and one way was to use a “cartoon-like” approach to the military. The props (cannons, swords, muskets) featured with Ms. Austin look like something that would have been used during the Civil War or even the Revolutionary War. The goal was to create a hip, youthful aura for Dodge cars, which had definite “street cred” as strong performers, and were solidly engineered, but also at least one cycle behind Pontiac when it came to styling. Perhaps the comic military props and curvaceous Ms. Austin distracted the viewer from the more rectilinear lines of the Dodges (although I think the cars look good today).
Also remember that, during the mid-1960s, there were, among new-car buyers, plenty of veterans of World War II and the Korean War who had seen actual combat. Meanwhile, American involvement in the Vietnam War was escalating. Any ads featuring modern weapons would not have brought about pleasant associations for veterans or society as a whole.
Dodge’s chief rival, Pontiac, was also rebelling…although more against GM corporate management than anything else. The Pontiac ad campaigns and promotional stunts regularly gave GM’s top management fits, to the point that, in 1966, Chairman Jim Roche personally called Pontiac’s general manager and told him to end the “Tiger” campaign immediately. Given the growing ruckus over safety, the concern of GM’s management was understandable. After the debacle where GM was found to have authorized an investigation of Ralph Nader, the last thing GM management wanted was anything that drew negative attention to GM from the federal government.
That was a remarkable time period in so many ways. Even mighty GM couldn’t insulate itself from all of the societal turbulence.
A bit ironic is Esso used a tagline in their ads like “put a tiger in your tank” in these old commercials.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNECn9r9eRo
I’m not sure what your reference for 1969 pricing was, but the Newport four-door sedan started at $3,414, about $200 above the LeSabre sedan at $3,216. The Chrysler came standard with a 290 hp 383 while the Buick had a 230 hp 350. The New Yorker sedan’s base price was $4.487 vs. the Electra 225 sedan at $4,302 and Custom sedan at $4,517 (Source: “Encyclopedia of American Cars from 1930”).
Stumack, I used Gunnell’s Standard Catalog. In either this book or the Encyclopedia I will sometimes notice that an individual price is very different from those around it; when that happens I assume it’s a typo. In this case, Gunnell’s numbers look consistent through the Chrysler range from 1969-73. The Classic Car Database has prices closer to the Encyclopedia but somewhat different. So I don’t know what’s going on; when I have a minute I’ll do some more googling.
Curious that there is such a discrepancy. Contemporary documentation at Hamtramck Historical shows a Newport sedan MSRP of $3,397 and the New Yorker sedan at $4,470.
Yes it is curious, but I also fairly regularly find various types of errors in the major auto history reference books. I don’t wish to wag a finger at the authors because of the sheer amount of information they must wade through. I do wish that they invited specific feedback from those of us who work with their data regularly.
Thank you for the reference to Hamtramck Historical; I’ve added it to the Links page. At this point it seems like my “best” option is to use the Encyclopedia’s list prices. They may not track exactly to your source, but they are presumably internally consistent, which is important to the comparisons I make. I have updated text and graphs in this and related stories.
Thank you for raising the issue. I view Indie Auto articles as living documents that are improved as I come across new information or receive feedback by readers such as yourself. This is a journal of opinion, but I nevertheless want to get the facts right.
I think the 1965 through 1971 Chryslers were very elegant and different from G.M. or Ford products. Chryaler’s biggest problem was the word-of-mouth that their quality was questionable. Panel fit and other issues compromised Chrysler’s full-size cars, even on the showroom floor.
I’ve been reading old issues of Consumer Reports and the “Owners Report” series of Popular Mechanics. Chrysler products were actually well-assembled, and quite reliable, in 1965. There is a drop in assembly quality for 1966, followed by another, more severe decline, in 1969. Mechanical reliability then declines noticeably for 1968. Chrysler Corporation went from having the most reliable cars in the mid-1960s to having the least reliable – and most poorly built – cars by 1970.
I’m looking at the top ad. Is it just me or does the guy in that top ad look like he’s nursing a hangover? Damn, those Chryslers were beautiful though.
Maybe the music is making him sick. I like the 1968s best; the photography was exceptional.
Ok, now you’re just trolling me…
In my opinion, Geeber’s analysis is spot on: Chrysler’s marketing materials were targeting Buick, as Oldsmobile’s full-size car brochures were dull, especially when compared to the Pontiac sales materials. The big area that Chrysler emphasized best in print were the interiors, which by the 1970s, matched Imperials (which became New Yorker Broughams). I do remember in 1965 through 1967, once spring arrived and as Chrysler’s sales bank inventory grew each year, Indianapolis Chrysler-Plymouth dealers were advertising in newspaper classifieds new Newports for $ 2,964.00, which must have given Dodge dealers fits ! I have been collecting dealer sales brochures from the mid-1950s into the 1980s. Pontiac’s were the best, at least until 1971. Chrysler’s were in the top three in terms of portraying aspirational image until 1979 when everything fell apart. For all Chrysler’s faults, at least they did not stoop as low as Mercury in the early 1970s with “THE MAN’S CAR” advertising campaign in print and on TV ! YIKES !