Companies are in a constant war in attempt to surpass and gain more revenue than other corporations who they believe may get in the way of their success. Ira C.Herbert, an executive of the Coca Cola company, addresses R.W Seaver with a persuasive letter regarding the use of the “It’s the Real Thing” slogan. In response to Herbert’s letter, R.W Seaver, a representative of the publishing company Grove Press, also writes an influential letter and defends the utilization of the same phrase by establishing how Coca Cola would not be affected in providing a clear advertisement towards its consumers. Whereas Ira C. Herbert’s letter contains a direct tone as illustrated by his constant criticism, Seaver’s response is more persuasive due to its …show more content…
His demanding tone comes off as importunate, because his statements are more like commands rather than statements. Herbert assumes that by implementing the same slogan in their advertising, Grove Press and Coca Cola will complicate the customer’s shopping experience, because “There will always be likelihood of confusion as to the sponsorship of the goods…” (Para 3). In his pursuit to persuade Seaver, Herbert illustrates the negative consequences and how the Coca Cola company will be affected as an effect of invoking the same phrase in their advertising. His argument is built with opinions and is not substantiated by any evidence, hence Herbert’s effort to convince the other party is unsuccessful.
As a result, Seaver retaliates Herbert’s remarks by demonstrating how Grove Press’s use of the “It’s the Real Thing” slogan would not jeopardize any products. It would in fact be beneficial to the Coca Cola company in the sense that the consumer would recognize the slogan and feel compelled to go buy their product. His assertion shows how rather than being harmful, using the same slogans would be convenient to Coca Cola because the reader might “buy a Coke rather than a book.” (Para 3) Seaver counters Herbert’s argument by providing examples on how their slogan would not diminish or decrease the effectiveness of Coca Cola’s revenue. He then proceeds to assert “We [Grove Press] would be happy to give Coke the residual benefit of our advertising.” (Para 3)
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
When thinking of what makes a successful advertisement, many would agree that the most successful brands adapt to the society and trends around them. Similar to everything else in our world, advertisements continue to change year after year and era after era. When thinking of common brands with impressive advertisements and campaigns, Coca-Cola is one that we are introduced to at a young age. Coke has been advertising their brand for over one hundred years. This brand continues to relate to many consumers by modifying and creating advertisement campaigns, which relate to current trends. Two advertisements in particular test the theory of how as era’s progress what was once seen as competitive relationship is now a budding romance and popular marketing strategy.
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 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
First, the author utilizes strategies from the rhetorical triangle to create a stronger argument about how the company MagnaSoles convinces customers to buy their product using scientific research. The text includes ethos to point out how marketing strategies establish the credibility of various speakers within the text. It includes a thought from Dr. Arthur Bluni who is “[…]the pseudoscientist who developed the product for Massillon-based Integrated Products.” By appealing to credibility, companies attract the consumers attention and convince them to buy this product. The author uses logos to describe why customers should buy MagnaSoles. “[...] features more than 200 isometrically aligned Contour Points,” states Dr. Arthur Bluni. This quote describes how the company convinces people to buy this product with the use of scientific research, which makes customers feel that the product will be effective. The use of the rhetorical triangle helps demonstrate how the author’s use of ethos and logos mocks consumers for falling for buying this product.
He and Lutz’s arguments coincide on the grounds that advertising is primarily about selling a product, and that there is unique language involved in doing so. O’Neill suggests that “Advertising is nothing more than the delivery system for salesmanship” and asserts that it is the consumer, not the advertisers, with the power to buy or not buy a good or service. He later delves into the many techniques used by advertising agencies, from their unique advertising speak to the powerful imagery used to capture the attention of their demographic.
Herbert immediately builds up credibility on the matter of the slogan due to his position at Coca-Cola USA. He provides examples from the history of Coca-Cola where the slogan had been used. Furthermore, he appeals to fear by using scare tactics such as subtlety threatening legal action by “appreciating their cooperation” without having even a reply from Seaver (Herbert 26). As a result, his letter is similar to a cease and desist type which is used to threaten legal action. Herbert presents the friendly, cooperative tone to ensure Grove Press just meets their demands without any efforts of rebutting. He intends to make use of his corporate power to scare the Grove Press into meeting his demands by
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
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?
Herbert gives a detailed illustration of how the company utilizes the slogan in all its publicity from 1940’s up to the 1970’s. He dates back to claim his point of the authenticity of the slogan being exclusive to Coca Cola. The author cites evidence that illustrates how the slogan is a big deal for the company since they initiated advertising with this particular slogan in 1942. That is to say Herbert feels like his company should be the only one that should be able to use the slogan because people might get confused between drinking Coke and reading the book. Possibly the speaker is concern that the use of the slogan in another product might reduce their sells because of the confusion of the two products. To further illustrate this idea,
Despite its relation to obesity and other health risk, soda still remains as a popular beverage in the United States, and upon other demographic groups. Amongst the lineup of refreshments, Pepsi and Coca-Cola are the most leading carbonated cola beverage brands around the world. Pepsi and Coca-Cola had been rivals when introduced respectively in the 1900s, trying to dominate the carbonated soft drink market. Through print ads and video ads, both brands were undergoing global advertising war trying to dominate each other. Between the two brands, Coca-Cola seem to be superior to Pepsi due to it’s creative advertisements that grabs consumer’s attention. Coca-Cola portrays rhetorical strategies within the advertisement to catch the audience’s attention by using ethos, pathos, and logos.