Leonard vs. Pepsico

Mrs. Seaver of Grove Press creates a much more convincing and persuasive argument through his compelling rebuttal of Mr. Herbert’s original letter. Although Mr. Herbert’s argument may seem logical in itself, Mr. Seaver mocks the argument and ultimately demonstrates the absurdity and triviality of the initial complaint. At the time the Coca-Cola representative wrote the initial letter, the company did not possess a patent declaring it had any legal rights to the slogan “It’s the Real Thing,” making the slogan fair game for Grove Press to exploit in its advertising. Mr. Seaver’s sarcastic tone, although much less professional than Mr. Herbert’s, also leaves a more lasting sway in the minds of readers. By exactly repeating certain convincing phrases and statements from the Coca-Cola letter, such as “dilute the distinctiveness” and “diminish the effectiveness,” and subsequently integrating them into his own argument, Mr. Seaver undermines their validity in the first

When it comes to the topic of commercials, most of us readily agree that commercials are irritating. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the purpose of the commercial. Whereas some are convinced that commercials are meaningless, others maintain that commercials tell a story. Effective commercials are repetitive and illustrate a story. Marketers use rhetoric marketing, the art of persuasive speaking and writing, when persuading an audience to buy a product. Rhetoric marketing is especially effective through the illustration of a story. It is effective because the marketer is able to relate to the consumer with a story or message. Advertisers also use the appeals of logic, credibility, and emotions to intrigue interest in a company. Coca-Cola’s advertisement, “Falling,” depicts the product as a confidence building companion suitable for young love through a series of logical and emotional appeals that visibly promotes the brand’s credibility.

In the reading Advertisements R Us, Melissa Rubin expands upon her analysis of Coca-Colas’ 1950 magazine advertisement, and brings many points to light about how the company uses cleverly crafted advertising tactics to appeal to a specific group of Americans. By clearly communicating her evidence to back up the analysis of the advertisement, Ruben composes a thoughtful and persuasive paper. For example, Rubin explains how simple details, such as the use of their slogan on the vending machine pictured which reads “Drink Coca-Cola - Work Refreshed”, and the placement of “Sprite Boy” in the ad, all work together to send a message that makes consumers want to buy their product. Consequently, because of the evidence presented in her writing, Rubin has crafted a paper that I find logical and persuasive.

4. What was Pepsi’s meaning management game? Was it really a threat to Coke? How should have responded to Pepsi’s

Coca-Cola’s confidence in its domination over the soft drink industry eroded, and its advertising slogans began to recognize industry competition: “No Wonder Coke Tastes the Best”. While Coke’s slogans have always centered on the product, Pepsi’s advertisement emphasized the users of the product. Rather than targeting every market, Pepsi focused on the demographic environment. Pepsi foresaw the mass appeal of the youth generation for soft drinks and in 1961 divulged the successful slogan “Now, It’s Pepsi, for Those Who Think Young”. The campaign was such a success that Pepsi’s sales growth outperformed that of Coca-Cola.

In her article “Advertisements R Us,” Melissa Rubin notes that Coke’s message in the ad she analyzes is that “Coke will refresh and unite working America” (249). Her evidence for this is based on several things—for instance, right in the middle of ad sits a large Coke machine and the bottom of the ad explicitly states, “A welcome host to workers—Inviting you to the pause that refreshes with ice-cold Coca-Cola” (249). She concludes her article with the insight that “Coke ads helped shape the American identity,” pointing to the underlying message of the ad that Coke can provide the carefree, joyful life it never fails to portray in its ads to everyone who takes a sip (250).

During Cola Wars, a critic from the Onion, which is a satirical website. The Onion makes a reference to the Cold War, but it is about the Cola Wars, this is a written article,” Ad Industry Veterans Honored With Cola War Memorial,” discusses. The purpose of this article is to criticize those who make simple, unimportant things become an over exaggerated situation when there are bigger problems out there. The intended audience is for those who make irrelevant things bigger so he uses emotions and client testimonials. The attitude towards the audience is mocking the audience and burlesque which these both things are satirical. Therefore, the Onion uses the rhetorical devices of client testimonials, distortion and hyperbole.

The “Ad Industry Veterans Honored With Cola War Memorial” is a satirical article published by a website called onion. This article was written in April 9, 1997 the article is about Cola War memorial and honoring the veterans of the Cola War. This article was also written during World War II , the author uses an ironic and serious tone in order to convince American that they should forget the “Cola Wars” because it is a minor event compared to other historical events. The author's purpose is to humiliate and ridicule those who give importance to the Cola wars. The author uses rhetorical devices such as allusions, satire, and anecdotes to ridicule those who participated in these wars.

Over the last few decades, American culture has been forever changed by the huge amount of advertisement the people are subjected to. Advertising has become such an integral part of society, many people will choose whether or not they want to buy a product based only on their familiarity with it rather than the product’s price or effectiveness. Do to that fact, companies must provide the very best and most convincing advertisements as possible. Those companies have, in fact, done

During the “Pepsi Challenge,” the person would prefer one product to the other. In the late 1990s, “Pepsi launched its most successful long-term strategy of the Cola Wars, Pepsi Stuff.” The Consumers were “invited” to “Drink Pepsi, Get Stuff” by using codes on cans and bottle caps to redeem points for free Pepsi lifestyle merchandise. The battle continues today “as they battle for brand supremacy…through advertisements, slogans, and celebrity endorsements.”

The plaintiff Leonard used drastic interpretations of substantive and contract law to express his understanding of the Pepsi Stuff promotion. Plaintiff feels if "an advertisement is clear, definite, and explicit, and leaves nothing open for negotiation [then] it constitutes an offer, acceptance of which will complete the contract"(Leonard v PepsiCo, 6). In such a case, an advertisement that is so specific leaves no grounds for questioning, therefore a contract is formed. The plaintiff attempts to stretch the boundaries of unilateral contracts claiming that PepsiCo made a clear offer and that he should receive the reward promised for his performance of the specified act. This is backed by the commanding 1892 Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. case stating, "If a person chooses to make extravagant promises…he probably does so because it pays him to make them, and if he has made them, the extravagance of the promises is no reason in law why he should not be bound by them" (Leonard v PepsiCo, 6). The plaintiff claims that the commercial posed an offer to him and through this offer he should be granted a reward even though there is no legally binding

The objective theory of contracts is relevant to this case, because there was a clear difference between what Pepsi was thinking and what Leonard was thinking. Each had their own view of what the advertisement constituted, and it is from these differing views that the contract dispute arose. The judge in this situation must use the objective theory to decide the case. This means that the case can only rest on what has actually been communicated between the two parties. In this case, Pepsi has an advertisement that discusses its promotion. The promotion describes a bargain in which a customer presents Pepsi with "points" and Pepsi allows the customer to redeem those points

1) What is EVA? What are the advantages and disadvantages of using EVA as a measure of

Plaintiff-appellant John D.R. Leonard alleges that the ad was an offer, that he accepted the offer by tendering the equivalent of 7 million points, and that Pepsico has breached its contract to deliver the Harrier jet. Pepsico characterizes the use of the Harrier jet in the ad as a hyperbolic joke (“zany humor”), cites the ad 's reference to offering details contained in the promotional catalog (which contains no Harrier fighter plane), and argues that no objective person would construe the ad as an offer for the Harrier jet.

In this particular ad Pepsi recreated a scene of a protest, during a time in which the country was divided by the Black Lives Matter campaign. In Pepsi’s protest, people were smiling and laughing and the line of protest was very calm. When Kendall Jenner comes out of the crowd and hands the police officer a Pepsi, everything is immediately solved and everyone starts cheering. Viewers were impacted by this as they believed that Pepsi was trying to say that one can of soda could erase the tension and anger between protesters and police. In reality, the company told viewers, “Pepsi was trying to project a global message of unity, peace and understanding” (Smith). They want to inspire others to join together to create peace, just as Jenner did when she left her photoshoot to join the protest. Instead, the company sent a message that if a twenty-one-year-old model led the Black Lives Matter campaign with a can of Pepsi, everyone would get along. Activist DeRay McKesson told NBC News correspondent Gabe Gutierrez, "This ad trivializes the urgency of the issues and it diminishes the seriousness and the gravity of why we got into the street in the first place” (Smith). Viewers saw this ad as insensitive as it suggested that the Black Lives Matter protests were unimportant.