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
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
Related
- Satisfactory Essays
Letter To Seaver Rhetorical Analysis
- 264 Words
- 2 Pages
Within the second section of Herbert’s letter to Seaver, he is informing the book advertiser that there could be possible confusion between both companies due to the use of a similar slogan. For instance in lines 10-11, the Coca-Cola executive states, “There will always be a likelihood of confusion as to the source or sponsorship if the goods.” This is to say that the consumers of these products, whether it be the book or the soda, would probably be confused on what item they want to purchase. This
- 264 Words
- 2 Pages
Satisfactory Essays