The
following letters constitute the complete correspondence between an executive
of the Coca-Cola company and a representative of Grove Press. Read the
letters carefully. Then write an essay analyzing the rhetorical strategies
each writer uses to achieve his purpose and explaining which letter offers
the more persuasive case.
|
Mr.
R. W. Seaver
Executive
Vice President
Grove
Press, Inc.
Dear
Mr. Seaver:
Several
people have called to our attention your advertisement for Diary of a
Harlem Schoolteacher by Jim Haskins, which appeared in the New York Times
Since
our company has made use of “It's the Real Thing” to advertise Coca-Cola long
prior to the publication of the book, we are writing to ask you to stop using
this theme or slogan in connection with the book.
We
believe you will agree that it is undesirable for our companies to make
simultaneous use of “the real thing” in connection with our respective
products. There will always be likelihood of confusion as to the source or
sponsorship of the goods, and the use by such prominent companies would dilute
the distinctiveness of the trade slogan and diminish its effectiveness and
value as an advertising and merchandising tool.
“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 and extended it to outdoor advertising, including painted walls--some of
which are still displayed throughout the country. The line has appeared in
advertising for Coca-Cola during succeeding years. For example, in 1954 we
used “There's this about Coke--You Can't Beat the “Real Thing” in national
advertising. We resumed national use of “It's the Real Thing” in the summer
of 1969 and it is our main thrust for 1970.
Please
excuse my writing so fully, but I wanted to explain why we feel it necessary
to ask you and your associates to use another line to advertise Mr. Haskin's
book.
We
appreciate your cooperation and your assurance that you will discontinue the
use of “It's the real thing.”
Sincerely,
Ira C.
Herbert
|
Mr.
Ira C Herbert
Coca-Cola
P.O.
Drawer 1734
Dear
Mr. Herbert:
Thank
you for your letter of March 25th, which has just reached me, doubtless
because of the mail strike.
We note
with sympathy your feeling that you have a proprietary interest in the phrase
“It's the real thing,” and I can fully understand that the public might be
confused by our use of the expression, and mistake a book by a
We
would certainly not want to dilute the distinctiveness of your trade slogan
nor diminish its effectiveness as an advertising and merchandising tool, but
it did not occur to us that since the slogan is so closely identified with
your product, those who read our ad may well tend to go out and buy a Coke
rather than our book. 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.
Problems
not unsimilar to the ones you raise in your letter have occurred to us in the
past. You may recall that we published Games People Play, which became
one of the biggest nonfiction best-sellers of all time, and spawned conscious
imitations (Games Children Play, Games Psychiatrists Play, Games Ministers
Play, etc.). I am sure you will agree that this posed a far more direct
and deadly threat to both the author and ourselves than our use of “It's the
real thing.” Further, Games People Play has become part of our
language, and one sees it constantly in advertising, as a newspaper headline,
etc. The same is true of another book which we published six or seven years
ago, One Hundred Dollar Misunderstanding.
Given
our strong sentiments concerning the First Amendment, we will defend to the
death your right to use “It's the real thing” in any advertising you care to.
We would hope you would do the same for us, especially when no one here in
our advertising agency, I am sorry to say, realized that you owned the
phrase. We were merely quoting in our ads Peter S. Prescott's review of Diary
of a Harlem Schoolteacher in Look, which begins “Diary of a
Harlem Schoolteacher is the real thing, a short, spare, honest book which
will, I suspect, be read a generation hence as a classic....”
With
all best wishes,
Sincerely
yours,
Richard
Seaver
|
Both the letters written by Coca Cola and Grove Press Inc. representatives use rhetorical strategies to ultimately convince the other of their rights to the slogan. The letter written by Ira C Herbert is an attempt to convince Grove press that they have exclusive rights to the slogan "it's the real thing". Multiple approaches are used in her letter. The first argument is that customers may confuse the sponsorship of products if they have the same catch phrase attached. This part of the argument is flawed and easily refuted by Richard Seaver of Grove Press. While rationally making the point that the this is highly unlikely, Seaver mocks the Coca Cola letter by sarcastically saying that he is sure people will get a six pack of Coke and a book confused, so he will insure all salesman will make sure that the customer wants a book and not a Coke. This effectively makes use of satire to get the point across that the products will not be confused.
ReplyDeleteIra Herbert makes another argument that the use of the slogan by two different companies will diminish its effectiveness, followed by a list of times the company started using the slogan. Once again Grove press effectively refutes the argument by saying that if the slogan is tied so closely to the company, that it would only hurt Grove Press, and actually help Coca Cola. He says that grove press essentially is advertising for cola cola if that is the case, and that it would not hurt either company to promote the other because they are not in competition with each other.
Because of the way that the Grove Press letter mocks Coca Cola and makes their concerns seem petty and unfounded, their letter is the more effective argument. The Coca Cola letter uses arguments that are generally unstable when compared to the the Grove Press Inc. letter. The company thinks that the use of the same slogan will lessen their advertising effectiveness, when in reality the slogan isn't even the same but just similar, and the thought that books would come in direct competition with their product. This reasoning is flawed and therefore shows how ineffective the letter would be even before it was sent.
Catherine,
DeleteYou made a very effective analysis of the arguments. I enjoyed that you organized your paragraphs by points made rather than each individual letter. I think you could have had a bit more analysis f rhetorical devices such as logos, pathos, and ethos, but overall great job.
Catherine:
DeleteI liked how you presented this blog in an organized fashion. You presented each sides ideas and then gave the rhetorical strategies. I agree with everything you had to say, and I did not find anything to criticize so overall you did a very nice job. I agree that Grove Press wrote the more persuasive letter as well.
Ira C. Herbert presents this letter as a way to inform Grove Press that they are using the slogan originally created from Coca-Cola. Both this letter and the reply by Richard Seaver use a series of rhetorical strategies to get their point across. The letter written by the representative from Coke states that the first issue is that basically they had written the slogan first, establishing their ethos. Next, Herbert suggests that since both companies are using "It's the real thing" there is a likelihood of confusion for customers. The next argument the Coca-Cola company presents by giving an abundant amount of times that the slogan was used in their advertising. They give dates and examples of the times this slogan was used, as another way to establish authority.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the Coca-Cola letter, Richard Seaver hits the nail on the head. He first replies with a sarcastic tone, as it seems, by saying that he understand customers will mistake a book for a six pack of Coca-Cola, and therefore he will instruct his salesmen to make sure all customers want the book and not a Coke just to make sure there is no confusion. Seaver using logos in this argument just by the his logic. Seaver also suggest that customers might even go out and buy a Coke since this slogan is supposedly so well known, therefore this could actually be helping the Coca-Cola business. Furthermore he goes on to say how using this slogan is going to continued to be used, as other examples have occurred in the past.
After studying both letters, I believe the letter constructed by Richard Seaver of Grove Press had the more persuasive of the two. He refuted Herbert's ideas in a substantial way that included logic, sarcasm, and other rhetorical devices. His argument not only made the most sense, but Herbert's ideas were ineffective because they were a little far fetched, especially the confusion argument. Overall, I understand the disapproval shown by the Coca-Cola company, but their letter was not as good as Grove Presses; its the real thing.
Gabe,
DeleteI completely agree that Seaver's argument was far more persuasive than Herbert's. I like that you included that you understood why Coke disapproved of the use of their slogan. You also did a great job of including rhetorical devices in your analysis.
Gabe,
DeleteGreat job!! You did a really good job on your analysis. You included good rhetorical devices.
Gabe, I agree that the Grove Press letter was more convincing, and I like how you say it's because the coca-cola one was far fetched. Seaver realized this and used it to his advantage. Great job.
DeleteI agree Gabe! Grove Press=way better
DeleteThe letter written by Ira C. Herbert mainly addressed the issues of Coke and Diary of the Harlem Schoolteacher having the same slogan. He used one incredibly weak claim that the two products could easily be confused. Also, Mr. Herbert used a great deal of logos to establish that Coke had exclusive rights to the slogan because they had used it over a long period of time. By listing dates, Herbert showed his extensive knowledge about the subject. His showing that he knew what he was talking about established some ethos in the letter.
ReplyDeleteTo refute Herbert's weak argument about confusing the two companies, Richard Seaver used a primarily satirical technique reminiscent of Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal." He mocked Herbert's weak argument by saying that in solution, the book company would simply ask each customer whether they were asking for the book or a six pack of Coke. In addition, he mentions that since the slogan was so well-known as the Coke slogan, the advertising would actually be beneficial to Coke, and Grove Press would be glad to serve as advertising for Coke. Mr. Seaver included a list of other instances in which the company had a conflicting slogan to establish his logos as well. He explained that, in those instances, the advertising was harmful because the companies were in competition, which is not the case for Coke and Grove Press. In the end, Seaver did admit that Grove Press did not realize the ownership of the slogan, and he proceeded to show the origin of the idea.
The ability of Grove Press to make Coke's arguments seem unreasonable made the argument far stronger than Coke's. Coke had a few weak arguments that were easily refuted. Herbert effectively and respectively attacked those arguments.
Jenna,
DeleteYou did a good job on including rhetorical devices. Your last sentence though, did you mean Seaver? Great job though!!
Jenna,
DeleteI really enjoyed your blog. You clearly identified each rhetorical device that was used in both letters. I also loved how you connected the letter by Grove Press with Jonathan Swift's, "A Modest Proposal."
Jenna:
DeleteYou did a nice of job of explaining this blog. You explained the logos, ethos, and satire in the two letters. I like how you brought Jonathan Swift into the piece as well, this helped people remember the satire in case they forgot! You might have confused the names in this but that is an easy mistake. Good job overall.
The letters written by Coca Cola and Grove Press Inc. representatives both use rhetorical strategies to convince their right of the slogan. The first letter written by Ira C Herbert tries to convince Grove Press Inc. that they have all the rights to the slogan. Herbert says the slogan "it's the real thing" may be confused by the customers with the sponsorship of the product. Seaver of Grove Press Inc. refutes is very easily by saying that he is sure that people will get a book and a Coke confused. He will then make sure that all the salesmen will make sure the customer wants a book not a Coke. While making this point Seaver uses satire. Also Herbert states ".. the use by such prominent companies would dilute the distinctiveness of the trade slogan and diminish its effectiveness and value as an advertising and merchandising too." As Herbert said this he listed times that the company had used the slogan. As of Seaver he refuted this too, he says that having the slogans tied so closely together that it would hurt Grove Press and help Coca Cola because Grove Press is pretty much advertising for Coca Cola and it would not hurt ether one of the companies because they are not in competition with each other. Between these two letters the Grove Press letter would be a more effective argument because it has stable ways to refute Coca Cola and its unstable arguments. As Coca Cola's arguments are so unstable and can not be completely supported shows that Grove Press has a better argument.
ReplyDeleteKira,
DeleteGreat job on your blog. However, I wish you would have analyzed the first letter written by Coca-Cola a little more. It appeared that you really only analyzed the second letter. You did make some great points though.
Kira, I agree with you that the grove press letter was better, but I wished you would have explained your points instead of just stating them. Besides this and a few run on sentences, your blog was good.
DeleteKira,
DeleteYou did make a good point by saying that the two companies are not in competition. This helps to justify Grove Press' advertising. However, I think you're wrong by saying that Coca-Cola's arguments are so "unstable." Since they had rights to the slogan and used that to help further their argument, wouldn't you say that their stance is based on a solidified foundation in that regard?
The letters written by Coca-Cola and Grove Press each contained several rhetorical devices that created strong arguments in both companies' letters. The first letter sent by the Coca-Cola company used different strategies to explain why Grove Press must stop using their slogan. Coke argues that they created the slogan, "It's the real thing," and have been using it to promote their product for many years. This helped to make both ethos and logos in their argument. Coca-Cola also continued to give examples of each time their slogan was used as an advertising technique to further develop their ethos and logos.
ReplyDeleteThe response from Grove Press was written in a sarcastic and satirical manner. Grove Press was able to attack each argument from Coca-Cola through the use of satire. They gave a simple solution to Coke's problem that each company using the slogan may lead to confusion between products. Grove Press failed to understand how a customer could ever confuse a book with a bottle of coke and made Coca-Cola's argument appear foolish and childish. Grove Press also explained that they have experienced the same issue before and would be more than happy to give the Coke company their slogan back. However, Grove Press also explained that they received the slogan idea from a review the book received, and not from the Coca-Cola advertisement.
The argument made by Grove Press appeared to be more persuasive. Their satirical technique was used to easily refute each argument Coca-Cola presented. Grove Press was also able to explain their own side of the argument and make several points to develop their stance on the issue.
Hailee,
DeleteYou stated that Grove Press' argument was more persuasive because their satirical technique was used to easily refute each point Coca-Cola presented. However, not every counterargument derived from a satirical nature. Also, in business affairs such as these, wouldn't you think that writing in a ridiculing tone hinders the argument more than it benefits it? Just a thought...
The correspondence between the executive of the Coca-Cola company, Ira Herbert, and the representative of Grove Press, Richard Seaver, employs a wide range of rhetorical strategies from both sides in an effort to demonstrate the cogency of each respective argument. At the onset, Herbert specifically identifies the issue and politely asks Grove Press to discontinue the use of "It's the Real Thing" in connection with the book. He soon follows with a closed thesis, so to speak, providing three reasons to support his stance: "There will always be likelihood of confusion as to the source or sponsorship of the goods, and the use by such prominent companies would dilute the distinctiveness of the trade slogan and diminish its effectiveness and value as an advertising and merchandising tool." The bulk of the argument is contained within the last paragraph, as Herbert appeals to logos and ethos by detailing the company's long-standing association with the slogan. He ends the letter with a respectable tone, reiterating his stance and why he and the company believe it is a necessary request.
ReplyDeleteAs for Seaver and his response, one can immediately feel a sense of mockery in his voice when he states that his company is making sure that when customers ask for a copy of Diary of a Harlem Schoolteacher, what they really want is the book and not a Coke. However, he goes on to explain how this could actually give Coke the benefit of Grove Press' advertising. Seaver effectively appeals to ethos by saying, "Problems not unsimilar to the ones you raise in your letter have occurred to us in the past," and then explaining how the company was able to develop a mutual partnership. Later on, it was a bit insulting, depending on the interpretation, for Seaver to say he was sorry that no one realized Coke owned the phrase. He could be implying that Coca-Cola's slogan isn't popular or well-liked.
Although Seaver discredited several of Herbert's points and despite the fact that Grove Press was only quoting a review of the book, I believe Ira Herbert presented the more persuasive case through a coherent, eloquently-written letter. His piece consisted of well-mannered diction, and he wrote in a courteous, business-like tone. In the end, Herbert's argument made the most logical sense: "It's the Real Thing" is Coca-Cola's slogan, so Grove Press should not have the right to publicize it too.
I do not agree with you Jared. I thought Herbert's argument was flawed and that Grove Press had the better letter.
DeleteThe first letter from Coca Cola company is very straight forward letter that tried to use its power as a massive company to try and win the rights to the slogan. Their main argument against sharing was that potential customers will be confused with both companies having the same slogan. The grove press responded with a massive attack with sarcasm, and was very entertaining to read. The grove press pointed out that is is extremely unlikely that people will get a book and a drink confused. This is a great point for their argument and the exceptional use of satire shows that they are not scared by the larger company, and that they think Coca Cola is extremely overreacting about a frivolous issue. After this claim Coca Cola attempts to establish ethos and logos, by explaining in detail that past connections to the slogan. This strengthens their argument, but their closing sentence comes off arrogant. This makes them look like they are stupid, because their argument is basically flawed. The Grove press used the First Amendment to support their argument and they state they they will fight this to the death. His gives their argument and element of pathos. They also use the success of the books that they published and the success of their current book. This gives their argument the logos and ethos that makes their argument well rounded, and a much more complete argument than that of Coca Cola.
ReplyDeleteMitchell,
DeleteYou did a great job of explaining why you thought Grove Press Inc. provided a better argument. Along with that, you pointed out the flaws in Coca-Cola's letter that weakened the argument.
The letters written by Mr. Herbert at the Coca-Cola company and Mr. Seaver at Grove Press have two completely different tones. The man at The Coca-Cola company, Mr, Herbert, was practically begging the people at Grove Press to stop using the catch phrase, "It's the Real Thing". Meanwhile, Mr. Seaver at Grove Press used sarcasm throughout most of his response letter. He used sarcasm to basically embarrass Mr. Herbert. I enjoyed Mr. Seaver's letter from Grove press the most. But it's doesn't matter who had the better argument, because neither of them have the slogan patented.
ReplyDeleteBen,
DeleteI was very glad to see you do the blog this week. Despite its shortness of length, your blog actually was short and sweet. You provided your side of argument you thought was best, and explained some rhetorical strategies displayed in the text. I would like to see you continue the blogs each weekend and maybe get a little more in depth with them, they are good grade boosters!
Chest,
DeleteYou did a great job explaining in the shortest way possible. Nice job!
Over this past year in AP English, I have learned that making a credible argument must include rhetorical devices to back it up. Both the companies of Coca-Cola and Grove Press Inc. tried to back themselves up by convincing the other the right to the slogan "The Real Thing." Overall, the second letter written in response to one written by Ira C. Herbert showed to be a lot more effective in whose argument was most convincing.
ReplyDeleteThe letter written by Ira C. Herbert was a very organized letter, but I'm not sure it was very convincing. He immediately stated the problem in the first sentence so the audience knew right away what the problem was. Throughout the letter, it appealed to me that the letter was written with little or no emotion. As a reader, I felt almost bored with the letter and they did very little convincing of why the slogan was theirs. Although, they did appeal to logos as they pointed out historical information regarding when they used slogan in the past.
Now the second letter that was written in reply to Coca-Cola was written ingeniously. They successfully pointed out the ridiculousness of how Coca-Cola was concerned with the possibility of customers being confused with the different products. Mr. Seaver used satire and irony such as when he said that "we have instructed all our salesmen to notify bookstores that whenever a customer comes in and asks for a copy of Diary of a Harlem Schoolteacher they should request the sales personnel to make sure that what the customer wants is the book, rather than a Coke."
The second letter written by Mr. Seaver was a lot more enjoyable to read and provided several rhetorical strategies compared to the first letter written by Coca-Cola. Therefore, I think that Grove Press, Inc. successfully refuted the arguments made by Coca-Cola and was most convincing.
Brad,
DeleteI really liked how you brought up what we learned so far in this year, and I could not agree more. Your argument is well sounded and I liked how you broke down the parts of the letter