How far should AMC have gone to save the Hudson, Nash and Rambler brands?

Stephen Pellegrino has sparked a debate about the value of automotive brands by arguing that Hudson, Nash and Rambler were worth saving. His punchline is that “brand names mean something, and the intangibles they represent can be hard to duplicate once they’re gone. And when they’re gone, it’s almost impossible to revive the names once again” (2023, original italics).

I have some sympathy for his view, particularly when applied to a smaller automaker. Building a strong brand can take huge resources invested over many years. During the postwar period that was much more easily done by Big Three automakers because they had far deeper pockets than any independent . . . yet even they had trouble establishing new brands, such as the Edsel and Imperial.

Also see ‘1958 Imperial: Virgil Exner’s best shot at Cadillac’

In just 12 years American Motors killed off not one, not two, but three brands. This required the automaker to establish replacement brands. The money and managerial bandwidth spent on this could have arguably been better invested in keeping their products up to date — which was already a struggle.

So am I agreeing with Pellegrino that none of AMC’s brands should have been killed? Not necessarily. Auto executives still need to be realistic about whether a brand is viable. A good example was Plymouth, which from 1978 until its death in 2001 — 23 years later — failed to offer any high-volume products that were not thinly disguised Dodges, Chryslers or Mitsubishis. Keeping alive this brand was arguably more costly that eliminating it — along with taking the long-overdue step of consolidating Dodge and Chrysler-Plymouth dealer networks.

Why American Motors elevated Rambler to a brand

Elevating the Rambler from a nameplate to a brand was apparently done for two reasons. First, because it would ease the consolidation of Hudson and Nash dealer networks after the two automakers merged to form American Motors.

Second, at that point Rambler was far more popular than either Hudson or Nash, whose sales were in such steep decline that resale values were weak and potential buyers were rightly concerned about getting stuck with an orphan.

The most obvious alternative would have been for Rambler to have been continued as Nash’s compact nameplate while Hudson was given its own version. For the sake of discussion, let’s call it the Jet.

This scenario might have been plausible if the Jet had enough differences from the Rambler — such as sportier models — to carve out a distinct market niche. However, even the full-sized Hudson was not differentiated enough to do so.

Also see ‘Why was the 1955 Hudson not successful?’

Perhaps just as importantly, maintaining parallel lineups could have delayed consolidating Hudson and Nash dealer networks, which was arguably essential to increasing the automaker’s shaky economies of scale.

American Motors got around the problem of fielding two compacts by elevating Rambler to a brand and selling it at all dealers. That also allowed a unified marketing effort rather than separate ad campaigns for the Jet and Rambler.

Elevating the Rambler to a brand did undercut the viability of Hudson and Nash because they could no longer offer lower-priced models. Even so, they could have still been kept around as boutique brands with a narrow range of models. That’s essentially what Pellegrino says was the better way to go.

Keeping Hudson and Nash would have been challenging

Pellegrino argues that Hudson and Nash could have helped the automaker better compete in mid- or full-size fields. For example, the Rambler Ambassador might have sold better if it had a more prestigious brand name.

“When you’re spending a little over $3000 for a car once a few optional extras are added on, you want something that will impress the neighbors,” Pellegrino (2023) argues. “Despite the Ambassador’s added length and slightly better trim, most people will see it as just another Rambler. And Rambler is perceived as being a low-priced, economy car.”

That may have been true, but in the absence of sheetmetal changes a Hudson and Nash might have still looked like a Rambler. That could have destroyed whatever brand equity they had left. And if they were given more differentiation, would that have penciled out in light of their relatively low sales?

That question becomes more difficult because we’re talking about two brands with similar market positioning. Do you give each brand a more distinctive market niche or ditch one of them? And if you do the latter, which brand goes?

Also see ‘Automotive News treats Gerald C. Meyers’ tenure at AMC with kid gloves’

This would have been less of a problem if the Rambler body had been more flexible. For example, Nash might have focused on a luxurious four-door sedan and wagon while Hudson highlighted a sporty two-door hardtop and convertible. The latter wasn’t a great option because the Rambler body was too tall and boxy to be competitive once the industry switched to low-slung bodies.

That said, let’s assume AMC did field a broader range of body styles and gave both the Hudson and Nash at least somewhat distinctive styling. Would it have been worth the added costs? Perhaps even more importantly, given AMC’s close brush with bankruptcy in 1956-57, could the automaker have afforded a more ambitious product range in the 1958 model year? I suspect not.

One might question whether AMC was being too ambitious to try selling a compact car in the $3,000 range. The Rambler Ambassador’s pricing was somewhat higher than Studebaker’s poor-selling President models. In addition, the Studebaker-based 1957-58 Packard was priced higher than the Ambassador and sold in even more modest numbers. If a prestigious brand name was such a big deal, why didn’t Packard do better?

Pellegrino is right about AMC’s disregard for branding

All this is a long way of saying that AMC head George Romney made a reasonable decision in killing the Hudson and Nash brands. However, he could have done more to preserve useful elements of Hudson’s heritage by offering a sporty Hornet model to go along with the Rambler-based Ambassador. The 1957 Rebel was a good blueprint for such a model (go here for further discussion).

On the other hand, Pellegrino was right to question killing the Rambler. While reasonable people can debate whether it was beyond redemption as a brand, it strikes me as a no-brainer that Rambler should have at least been kept around as a nameplate for AMC’s compact sedans and wagons.

Why? Because it would have been cheaper to update the Rambler’s stodgy image than throw away its hard-earned name recognition.

Also see ‘Brooks Stevens wasn’t big on brand continuity’

Pellegrino also quite rightly complains about other AMC decisions, such as naming the Rambler’s replacement the Hornet. That nameplate was much better suited to a sporty coupe like the Javelin than an economy compact.

By the same token, Pellegrino criticizes the identity crisis AMC created by introducing the Matador. That was the second name change for the automaker’s mid-sized models in only five years. Might sales have declined less precipitously if they had kept the Classic nameplate (go here for further discussion)?

Pellegrino is on to something by pointing out the importance of branding in the auto industry. My goal has been to add more layers of nuance to the discussion.

NOTES:

Prices, specifications and general historical background from the auto editors of Consumer Guide (1993, 2006) and Gunnell (2002). 

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.
• Gunnell, John; 2002. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1946-1975. Revised 4th Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
• Pellegrino, Stephen; 2023. “CC Formerly For Sale: 1958 Ambassador – Something For Nash And Hudson Loyalists To Buy in ’58.” Curbside Classic Posted Sept. 2.

ADVERTISING & BROCHURES

• oldcaradvertising.com: Packard (1957); Plymouth Sapporo (1980); Rambler (1956)
• oldcarbrochures.org: Hudson (1957)