Marketing Strategies Of Coca Cola Company

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 disputes on executive sales, companies prefer to keep the war on paper, but regardless, the battle can get quite intense. Ira C. Herbert is a representative for Coca-Cola while R.W. Seaver represents the Grove Press Company. Both employees send letters in order to dispute over the usage of the catch phrase “It’s the Real Thing.” Each representative addresses his reasoning behind why each respective company has the right to the use of the phrase. To persuade one another, the use of rhetorical strategies is apparent throughout each letter. Whereas, Mr. Seaver’s letter is straightforward and sarcastic, Ira C. Herbert’s response is more persuasive due to its use of evidence in justifying Coca Cola’s priority in the use of the slogan.

In addition Herbert devotes the fourth paragraph of his letter to an historical allusion about the slogan and starts it off by asserting that, “”It’s the Real Thing” was first used in advertising for Coca-Cola over twenty-seven years ago to refer to our product. We first used it in print advertising in 1942…” Herbert creates a very egotistical persona for himself, as he gloats over how well the slogan has worked for Coca-Cola and undermines Seaver’s knowledge, which insinuates that he is ignorant.

Historical illusions are also being employed in this letter as a form of a rhetorical strategy; it is used in the fourth paragraph just like in the first letter but the only difference is that this time Seaver is telling Mr. Ira Herbert about other cases his company has had in past that were just like this one but posed more of a threat to his company, rather than the history of the slogan “it’s the real thing”. Reduction which means the degradation of a victim is being brought into play by Mr. Seaver in the third paragraph of the letter where Seaver states, “we have discussed this problem in an executive committee meeting, and by a vote of seven to six decided that, even if this were the case , we would be happy to give coke the residual benefit of our advertising”, here Seaver is actually demeaning the stature and dignity of the Coca-Cola company because he is practically saying that if it’s the money coke wants, they would be glad to offer coke the money. A hyperbole is displayed in the concluding part of the letter that says “we will defend to the death your right to use “it’s the real thing” in any advertising you care to”, at this point Mr. Seaver is saying that he and his company are ready to defend to death

As it is stated in the case of Coca-Cola, it was a marketing machine ran by bureaucrats and tried to create an image of their brand more than

“Don’t plagiarize other people’s work kids!” someone once said as a warning to others who seem to be having trouble to do their own work. Between these two companies, one seems to have some trouble coping with the other one who has been seen using their slogan. Coca-Cola versus Grove Press will be a fight of a lifetime. An executive of Coca-Cola, Ira C. Herbert, wrote to a representative of Grove Press, Richard Seaver, that they have been stealing their slogan, “It’s the Real Thing.” Although both sides seem to be selling their products fairly well, one cannot simply assume that the other company is using their strength against the original company who came up with it first. Between the two letters that have been written back and forth

In both letters, one written by Ira C. Herbert, and the other by Richard Seaver, they use their letters to persuade the other to see their point of view. They do, however, use different methods to achieve this. Herbert supports her claim by offering a sympathetic tone in order to make Seaver change his theme or slogan. Herbert connects the slogan used by Seaver and the slogan used by the Coca-Cola Company in order to build up reasons why they

Ira Herbert attempts to use logic and historical context to convince Seaver that the slogan is for Coca-Cola use only. Herbert tries to address the topic seriously by using logic that “There will always be likelihood of confusion as to the source or sponsorship of the goods…”(10) Herbert addresses this topic to attempt to make Seaver realize that due to the same slogan he can lose money. This device is not effective because the connection is not reasonable. Herbert also uses historical context to inform seaver of their

Herbert’s strengths are making himself appear credible and having a demanding tone. Herbert makes himself credible by giving dates such as “In 1942”, “In 1954”, and “In 1969”. Herbert’s use of providing dates of various events related to the motto makes him appear more credible. The credibility provided from these dates help suggest that the Coca-Cola company pretty much owns the motto since they have been

In the conclusion of Herbert's letter he asserts dominance and believes that they will stop using the slogan “It’s the Real Thing” to advertise a book called “Diary of a Harlem Schoolteacher.” Herbert asserts dominance by stating that they’re unable to use the slogan because it belongs to them and has been used by Coca-Cola in the past. Herbert assumes that Seaver will stop using the slogan by stating “We appreciate your cooperation and your assurance that you will discontinue the use of “It’s the real thing””(lines 26-27). He doesn’t want the slogan to be used for the books advertisement because it could be confusing for customers. The tone that is used in Herbert's letter to Seaver is authoritative and informal. It’s authoritative because

The authors shows a formal argument of the slogan “it’s the real thing”, both Herbert and Seaver argue on the importance as the Coca-Cola company has stolen a slogan from Haskins .In the letter Herbert states that the Grove press should discontinue the use of the slogan¨It´s the real thing¨ as the Coca-Cola company did not want to advertise Jim Haskins novel ¨Diary of a Harlem Schoolteacher¨ as they too used the same phrase as Coca Cola ( Herbert, 23-25). That is to say, Herbert feels, not knowing the consequences of using a slogan to advertise other thing would be wrong. The significance of this idea is to prove Herbert’s agreement is weak compared to Seaver. It show how Seaver would be more convincing by using evidence to base off his ideas.To

The commercial also incorporated a presentation of the country's varying sprawling landscapes and metropolitan areas, along with Americans of different ethnicities, races, and families partaking in real life activities. With these elements: a patriotic song, playing on emotion, and an invocation of profound imagery, we see several of the tactics mentioned in both articles tackled in Coke's commercial. So why did Coca Cola receive such monumental uproar, if it made use of some of the fifteen basic appeals that make ads effective?

Throughout the course of this essay a rhetorical analysis will be performed over the subject of the popular soft drink, Coca Cola. Here we will take a look at two documents, both advertisement images, both from Coca Cola, separated by over 40 years. This sweet drink took the world by storm starting in the 1890’s and has been a household name since. With hundreds of thousands of soft drinks all over the world, Coca Cola is just another in a bucket, except with a different set of tactics toward drawing in their consumers.

Herbert explains that when using the slogan for any other company besides Coca-Cola is a serious issue that will not be taken lightly, in hopes that the Grove Press will be open to discussing the matter and resolving it. Herbert expresses that the slogan can cause confusion on directed audiences and how it should have restricted usage on non Coca-Cola products. In addressing Mr. Seaver, Ira C. Herbert quotes, “it necessary..to use another line to advertise Mr. Haskins book”; the tone embedded in the text shows a statement without discussion. The significance of the quote shows the authors dogmatic tone and hostile manner from using the slogan for Mr. Haskins book. Seaver claims that the slogan is ¨merely¨ a phrase anyone can remark and that

In this letter Richard Seaver, a representative from Grove Press, replies to Ira Herbert, an executive of the Coca-Cola Company, in regards to an advertisement for Diary of a Harlem Schoolteacher in the New York Times stating “it’s the real thing”. Because of this blurb in the morning paper, the Coca-Cola Company felt it necessary to inform Grove Press that “it’s the real thing” is used to sell Cokes, and demands that Grove Press restrain from using the slogan. The letter undoubtedly mocks Herbert for considering the small promotion to confuse customers into buying books rather than a case of Cokes. Seaver uses structure, syntax, diction, and tone to create a well developed and sarcastic response to Herbert stating that Grove Press has much better things to do then worry about a silly slogan, and are glad to say that they will not follow through with Herbert's request.