Ira C. Herbert, an executive of the Coca-Cola company, and Richard Seavers, a representative of Grove Press, are the speakers of their own respective letters and they both focus on the motto “It’s the real thing”. Herbert’s purpose is to convince Seavers to stop using the motto “It’s the real thing” and to use a different one and Seavers purpose is to address Herbert’s concerns about the motto and defends his company’s right to keep using the motto. Herbert adopts a friendly tone in order to point out what Seaver was doing, using the same slogan Coca-Cola uses. Seaver adopts a serious tone to guide Herbert what had happened to Herbert and the company of Coca-Cola. Herbert and Seaver use different rhetorical strategies in order to persuade …show more content…
This justifies that Seaver agrees with Herbert and from this readers will be able to tell this is one of his weakness because with agreeing with someone he is trying to persuade someone that is not going to stop using the slogan. Another weakness that Seaver includes is in lines 20-21 by saying, “Problems not unsimilar to the ones you raise in your letter have occurred to us in the past”, which is followed by a brief recount of a similar experience that Seaver faced before. The transition to his history is a weakness because he is getting off topic and is losing focus of the main point that he is trying to get across to Herbert. The effect of this is that it may cause Herbert to believe that he is losing focus of the issue and it may cause him to dismiss what is followed after the history due to the likelihood of being off-topic and likely unnecessary. 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
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
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.
In “Bring Back Flogging”, Jeff Jacoby addresses the problems within America 's criminal justice system. He gives many reasons why imprisonment simply does not work, and suggests that corporal punishment should be used as an alternative. Published in the Boston Globe, a newspaper well known for being liberal, Jacoby provides a conservative view and directs his argument towards those who strongly support imprisonment and view corporal punishment to be highly barbaric and inhumane. However, in order to shed light on our current situation, Jacoby discusses the dangers that we face though our criminal justice system a nd shows concern that imprisonment is doing more harm than good. In effect, Jacoby looks to the past for solutions, and
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 you see a solider in his or her uniform, you are proud that they are serving this country to protect our freedom, securing our country, and defending democracy worldwide. The solider can come from different branches of the Military. The one you might be familiar with is the U.S. Army. These soldiers are well respected and prepared to serve our country whenever and wherever needed, combat-ready at all times, and trained to counter any threat, anywhere. In 2007, the United States Army department published a recruitment ad for U.S.
“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
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
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
In May of 1998, Kipland Kinkel brought a gun to his school. Over the course of two days this escalated from: being sent home, to murdering his father and mother, to murdering 2 students and wounding 26, earning a lifetime sentence of 111 years and 8 months in prison. In the court case being examined, the presiding judge addresses the original case, defendants ground for appeal, and the justification for the State’s decision to deny the appeal. Judge Haselton effectively uses ethos, logos, and pathos to support the Higher Court’s decision to deny the appeal because the original sentence was constitutional and just.
Do traffic signals make a difference when drivers are conducting their vehicles? In U.K. the roads have less signs and are smaller roads than in the United States. The United States has great amounts of traffic signals and symbols all over the road to make the driver more aware. In the U.K. accidents do occur but not that often has in the United States. In the Unites States every second there is huge amounts of accidents going on over the nation. John Staddon in his magazine article “Distracting Miss Daisy” tries to persuade that traffic control is making traffic more dangerous because we do not pay attention to the road, but to the signals.
In response to Geoffrey Shepherd's article “It’s clear the US should not have bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki”. Shepard tries to pull us into his claim by using pathos, logos, and ethos. He uses estimates of 500,000 Japanese soldiers died from the atomic bomb. Then Geoffrey begins to state that we had an alternative spot to drop the bombs, the alternate spot we could’ve dropped the bomb would have been Tokyo Bay. It was idle and estimated that less lives would’ve been taken and would showed more of a threat to the Japanese leaders.
In March 1970, Ira Herbert of Coca-Cola wrote a letter to Richard Seaver of Grove Press, trying to convince him to stop using the phrase “it’s the real thing” in his advertisement of a new book. Mr. Herbert argued that the phrase was coined by Coca-Cola long ago, and that simultaneous use of the phrase would cause confusion. Mr. Seaver wrote back a few days later, arguing that his usage of the word was justified. In their letters, Mr. Herbert and Mr. Seaver use contrasting persuasion techniques: Mr. Herbert establishes a commanding and formal tone, while Mr. Seavers is sarcastic and comical.
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 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,