|
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
|
This is probably one of the greatest and well thought out responses that I have ever seen before. The use of a wide variety of rhetorical devices, backed with a smug attitude, probably shocked the billion dollar corporation, whom only requested for a simple favor. Like I mentioned before, the use of rhetorical devices laced throughout the two pieces were vast in number. In the first letter (Coca-Cola), we see a very parallel format. Each sentence builds onto the next, and by appealing to logos, the author proves that the phrase belongs to the soda company. They make use of dates and old advertisements to prove that they had it first and besides, what company wants their book to be confused with pop? At the end of the argument comes a giant antanagoge. The author states, "we feel it necessary to ask you and your associates to use another line to advertise", and then acts like its no big deal by saying, "We appreciate your cooperation and your assurance that you will discontinue the use of 'It's the real thing'." The author of the first letter is clearly over-confident because he/she is backed up by one of the biggest corporations in the world.
ReplyDeleteThe second letter was an amazing comeback. Although Coca-Cola thought that they may have stumped the book company, author Richard Seaver definitely thought otherwise. He starts out by apologizing for the slow response, due to the company mail strike, but jumps right into the argument. He first uses sarcasm by stating, "I can fully understand that the public might be confused by our use of the expression, and mistake a book by a Harlem schoolteacher for a six-pack of Coca-Cola." Ouch. Next, he furthers this device by stating 'if a customer comes into one of our stores, the sales personnel will ask if the person really wants the book, rather than a Coca-Cola'. He next uses a counter argument by saying that they are not dragging the soda company down, but rather helping it. They spread the slogan even further and if consumers see this phrase, they can easily identify it and may well go purchase a Coke rather than the book. The author next uses a Litotes, or makes an understatement by denying the opposite of a word that may have been used. He states, "Problems not unsimilar to the ones you raise." Next, we see an appeal to logos. Like the previous letter, he makes use of old advertisements, dates, and facts to prove that the company is worthy of using the phrase. In my opinion, the second letter definitely makes a better argument.
Charlie,
DeleteI too agreed with the fact the the second letter had far better structure and contained more rhetorical devices. I like how you found examples of different rhetorical devices such as a litote. I did not know what this was until I read it in your blog. Good work!
Rhetorical strategies are an effective tool when establishing a strong argument in a paper or other form of writing. With the proper use of rhetoric in an argument, an individual can sway his or her audience to be live what they are arguing is the best option. Without these devices, writing becomes ineffective and a pointless endeavor.
ReplyDeleteAfter reviewing the first letter, any major rhetorical strategies seem almost non-existent. The author of this writing, Mr. R W Seaver tries to achieve his point by using historical years in which the coca-cola company coined the term "It's the Real Thing." By doing this what Mr. Seaver is trying to claim is that the publishing company should no longer use "It's the Real Thing" within their advertisement scheme because Coke had already used it for their advertisement many years prior. Also what the first writing contains is a use of diction that doesn't come off as harsh but it is still firm in what they are trying to accomplish.
The response to Mr. Seavers letter was written by Mr. Ira C Herbert. The use of many rhetorical strategies makes his response one that the Coke company may never forget. His use of both sarcasm and satire work to make the people who wrote and helped write sound like complete fools. The author remarks that, "in order to clear up confusion that may arise from the conflicting products, the staff will ensure that customers want a book, and not a pack of Coke." The author's satire makes the company's fears and demands seem completely unreasonable.He also comes off very snarky and sarcastic when he included the sentences: "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 Harlem schoolteacher for a six-pack of Coca-Cola." All throughout his writing his continual gripping on of the idiocy that Coca-Cola had by writing them in concern for the comparing of an advertisement.
All in all, the second argument was the better written and more influential piece. The use of far more effective rhetorical strategies helped to strengthen the argument, whereas the first argument held no forms or rhetoric that caught the eye of the reader. It was dull and borin to read through it.in the end, a man from a smaller publishing company stood up against a multinational billion dollar business and ultimately came out victorious in what he was trying to accomplish.
Dan,
DeleteYour blog is very good. I enjoyed the examples you placed in your blog. I too, think the second letter was more influential and more well constructed than the first letter. The second letter had many more rhetorical strategies than the first letter did which presented it better.
Good job.
We agreed that the second letter, of the two was better. The second one made much better use of rhetocial strategies. Your right when saying that the second piece was also much more influential. I think you got the two writers flip flopped, but we all know what you meant.
DeleteNo matter what the topic is, there is always someone agrees and someone who disagrees, so how does one prove their point amidst the battle of who is right and who is wrong? Rhetorical strategies. Rhetorical strategies give and argument a persuasive kick that really helps get the debater's point across. This is exemplified in a letter to Grove Press and Grove Press' response to Coca Cola. The letter to Grove press flows nicely and is filled with logos. The writer heavily focuses on their slogan, "its the real thing," and why it is rightfully theirs. The piece has a demanding, yet respectful tone asking for Grove Press to remove their slogan. The argument is constructed well, but it lacks other rhetorical strategies making it less persuasive compared to the response.
ReplyDeleteGrove press received the letter and responded to it quickly. The writer provided an argument as to why they should be allowed to use the slogan. The response is filled with rhetorical strategies. The response uses the logos of Coca Cola's argument and turns it against them, claiming they had never even heard it because it was from so long ago. They also note that they did not get the statement from Coke, instead they were quoting Peter Prescott. The mention the first amendment to logically back their claim. The best strategy used in the argument was satire. The author jokingly says that employees will have to ask if they are sure the want the book and not a Coke, and that it did not occur that using Coke's slogan would convince people to buy it instead of the book. The logistics and satire incorporated into the response make Coca Cola seem like idiots. The extremely persuasive response makes it clear that Coke is asking for the removal of an old, almost unknown slogan, for a product that is not even closely related to pop.
The response's use of rhetorical strategies, especially countering the logos of the first, incorporating new logos, and the satirical appeals make the argument far more superior. Not only did the rhetorical strategies make the response better, but the also made Coca Cola's request seem highly unreasonable and justifiable. The letter and response are a perfect example of how easy it is to refute the opponent and persuade others with just a little more work and the incorporation of a few writing practices.
John,
DeleteYour blog is really good. I enjoyed your rhetorical question stated in the introduction. I too, found logos in the second letter and also thought it was hard to find a strategy in the first letter.
Good job.
I hope that those working at the Coke company got the message. The response from the book company was very effective at getting the message across. The response is so incredibly sarcastic that it makes anyone who read it at the Coke company feel embarrassed and stupid. In theory, those who wrote the letter to the book company had a valid concern. They supported their concern by telling the amount of work they put into their branding and how it has been effective. They went even further to give examples of how they used the slogan and what effect it might have on consumers if both companies used it. Still, the company did not think about how ridiculous their concern seemed in reality. It would have been more logical if both companies were involved with beverages. So obviously the letter from the book company is the more persuasive of the two. The letter from the book company is satirical and full of rhetorical devices. They put the ridiculousness of the concern into perspective throughout the entire letter. The letter said "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 Harlem schoolteacher for a six-pack of Coca-Cola." in order to put into perspective the stupidity of the Coke company. They then offer a ridiculous compromise to the solution in which they would clarify the misconception to customers. They continue to go further and bring the amendments into their letter in order to put the matter into proportion. They also point out that nobody at the agency knew that they own the slogan, so clearly it was not that popular or well known. Also, they give examples of similar situations in which nobody got confused and the slogan became a common term. This suggests that with both companies using the slogan that it will help both of them instead of hearing them. Overall, the response helps to point out the ridiculousness of the concern of the Coke company.
ReplyDeleteJustin, you make a good point about both of them being different type of companies. I agree with what you write, and you pointed out things I did not see.
DeleteJustin,
DeleteI liked how you made the connection with this companies solutions to the ones we made in our videos in class. Your response was well written out, and the winner of the argument is made clear. I also like the snarkiness of the second letter. Great blog.
Justin,
DeleteI like how you point out that the phrase must not be popular considering that no one at the book company knew about it, it is actually quite funny. The Coke company did not look at the context of the situation in the right perspective, and I like how you portray that. Good blog!
Each essay distributes some form of rhetorical strategy. There are so many rhetorical strategies that can be used. Rhetorical strategies help establish a strong argument. Who doesnt want that? These strategies help finalize the argument and persuade a sense of opinion also. These two letters; Grove Press and Coca Cola all have rhetorical strategies in them, but can you find them? In these two essays, influence, ethos, and logos are all used.
ReplyDeleteIn the first letter, ethos is used. Herbert used ethos when talking about the "Its the Real Thing". He had an emotional connection to it. It's their slogan and their right. They want the slogan removed since it has been used so many times. This was a striving accomplishment. Although this letter does establish ethos, there really isn't any other rhetorical strategy used. The strategies are hard to depict in the first essay.
Seaver had a good comeback in the second essay. The rhetorical strategies used are logos. In this essay, logic is established. Logic was used to describe the many things stated in the essay, including books and games. They also quoted Peter Prescott. That uses great logic as well. Although the essay is mostly logic, ethos is established just like in the first essay. Seaver feels the sympathy, emotion, and expression of Herbert, but possibly in a humorous way. Seaver is exaggerating and truly doesn't feel the characteristics of Herbert. This made the company look bad and possibly make them have a bad reputation.
The Grove Press and Coca Cola letters both establish valid arguments. Both essays are constructed well and get their point across. They establish these arguments by using rhetorical strategies. The second essay although, presented a strong argument using both ethos and logos throughout the piece even though it may not have been true. As we look into these essay and see what they really can do, we realize ourselves that used rhetoric can make us accomplish so much more than what we truly think.
Allie,
DeleteI agree with what you write and liked the way you described his pathos. You found a lot of great things in the two letters!
Allie,
DeleteI think that we found many of the same rhetorical strategies. Also I agree with almost all of them, I didn't find the appeal to ethos. I'm not sure how someone can connect to a slogan or phrase personally. Besides that, you make a great variety of connections. I especially liked how you talked about logic. Good blog.
I like how you went through the essays are said which appeal they used the strongest. Your blog was organized and thoughtful. I agree with the outcome you choice and you certainly supported it well!
DeleteThese two letters that discussed the line, "It's the Real Thing", portrayed many rhetorical strategies that not many people would exhibit on their writing. These rhetorical devices made the confrontation more exciting and leaves one thinking. The way these two men portray their writing and the rhetorical strategies they use can highlight a huge difference in how they argue. One man can get the job done, but the other only shows little rhetorical strategy in his work. These two letters contrast together and show how to write a smack in the face come back.
ReplyDeleteIn the first letter, Coca-Cola uses many historical dares and facts that can appeal to the reader in both logos and ethos. Also, the tone of the letter is just stern and they want to get the message across. The first letter basically shows how a normal person writing to another person concerning a problem that lies between them. It had some rhetorical strategies, but in all it was a simple letter. The author makes a claim, but does not much to describe more about it. Also, it was an easy letter for a person like Richard Seaver to come biting back at.
The second letter shows true rhetorical strategy in a very comical way. While the Coca-Cola company is just trying sort out an issue, Richard Seaver shows them up. "We can fully understand that the public might be confused by our use of the expression, and mistake a book by a Harlem schoolteacher for a six-pack of Coca-Cola." This line written shows the satire of this mans writing. He has a very sassy tone throughout the letter that can stump the reader. The author shows sarcasm that can make the reader feel as if what he just said does not make any sense or feel uncomfortable. This letter is more app leasing to read and give the readers more to work with the than the other letter.
Both of these letters portrayed rhetorical strategies, but the way the second one was written gave more to the reader and use the the right rhetorical strategies that gave the writer more to his argument.
Reilly,
DeleteWe both point out similar rhetorical strategies. I like how you point out the tone, as this was something I did not even think of. I believe that we have relatively the same points. Good blog!
Reilly,
DeleteI liked your statement, "These two letters contrast each together and show how to write a smack in the face comeback". Even you in your blog show some attitude to go along with the satire in the letters. Overall, we both had similar points and you did a great job pointing yours out.
Reilly,
DeleteI really enjoyed your blog. I agree with what you said and there are many similarities with what I wrote in my blog. You do a good job pointing out the differences between the letters and the strategies these people used.
The letters between Coca-Cola and Grove Press are full of rhetorical strategies and attitude. Coca-Cola wished for the Grove Press company to stop using the slogan "It's the Real Thing" as it appears in book comments. This request is reasonable, but it not necessary. As the letters show, writing to Grove Press was the wrong thing to do. In the Coca-Cola letter, there is an obvious appeal to ethos, which is the only appeal throughout the passage. They state that "It's the Real Thing" has been used in their company for many years throughout the 1960s and 1970s. They are trying to show that they used it first and, essentially, that they own the phrase. But, as the Grove Press response shows, they do not. The Coca-Cola letter has no rhetorical strategies, which is why it is lacking. The point was not supported well and had little to no effect in persuading the Grove Press company, which made it dry and boring.
ReplyDeleteIn contrast, the response letter was one that was unforgettable.The Grove Press letter was full of satire and was, in a way, mocking the Coca-Cola company. This argument was extremely successful because of the use of rhetoric, along with a little fun. They propose the idea that when someone comes into the bookstore and wishes to purchase the book, that it should be distinguished from a Coke. They state, "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." Grove Press brings the First Amendment into the letter which shows logos. The syntax of this second letter was much smoother and easy to read. It easily embarrassed the Coca-Cola company, which showed how petty the request was in the beginning.
I believe that without these appeals, the Grove Press argument would not have been successful whatsoever. The first letter was not written very well, and shows that we should always have appeals in our writing to make it persuasive. On the other hand, the second letter was a zing to the Coke company as it was full of sarcasm and rhetorical strategies. Overall, the second letter outs the first to shame and shows the effect that rhetorical strategies have on writing.
Kara,
DeleteWe had a similar take on what we received from reading these letters. I really liked the first sentence in your last paragraph reading, "I believe that without these appeals, the Grove Press argument would not have been successful whatsoever". You also mentioned syntax which I did not think of until I read your blog. Overall, you did a great job.
Kara,
DeleteI really like how you pointed out Coca-Cola's letter not having any rhetorical strategies, I agree. They just used their "authority" to be intimidating, but it did not work on the Grove Press company. In fact, it sort of backfired on them. Great job on this!
Kara,
DeleteI thought that it was funny when you said the two letters were full of attitude. The Grove Press definately put care into their response. I agree that they had the better of the two letters. The Grove Press did a great job embarrassing the Coke company. I am not much into reading, but their letter makes me want to buy one of their books. I enjoyed reading your blog.
Both Coca-Cola and Grove Press, Inc. used different rhetorical devices in their letters to each other. The two companies were arguing over the phrase "Its the Real Thing." In the first letter, written by Ira C. Herbert, Coca-Cola uses several different rhetorical devices to get their point across. To start, they do a good job of developing a tone in the letter, and sticking with that same tone throughout. The tone used is very arrogant and strict. Coca-Cola also relies heavily on their companies history in this letter. They state that they came up with the phrase "Its the Real Thing," in 1942 and have used it in many different years since. They use different appeals to logos and ethos in this letter as well. They use logos when saying that since they came up with the phrase "Its the Real Thing," that it belongs to them and no other companies should be able to use it. They use ethos when talking about how the phrase plays a big part in their companies history, making them the credible owner of the phrase. The second letter, written by Richard Seaver of Grove Press, Inc. like Coca-Cola, uses many different rhetorical devices. Seaver uses several different satirical devices, along with sarcasm to get his point across and make the people at Coke look very stupid. An example of this is when he says, "I can fully understand that the public might be confused by our use of the expression, and mistake a book by a Harlem schoolteacher for a six-pack of Coca-Cola." Seaver addresses these letters almost as if they were some sort of a joke, unlike the people at Coke who have taken it very seriously. Seaver's tone is humorous, and cocky when talking about the phrase, "Its the Real Thing." Overall, I think the letter written to Coca-Cola by the Grove Press Inc. is more persuasive. Coca-Cola's letter is more professional, but is arguing something very meaningless. Say Pepsi was the company using "Its the Real Thing," then Coke may have a real point, but it's pointless to argue with a book company. Grove Press Inc. took the letters much lighter, and overall did a better job using rhetorical devices.
ReplyDeleteFrank,
DeleteThe example you used when describing wether Coca-cola should have made this into something big when it didn't need to be was a very good analogy. I do think that there may be an issue if Pepsi were to use this slogan, but since it is dealing with something that is a complete polar opposite then there is no reason to raise a fuss. Good blog!
Reading these letters by two executive people was almost like witnessing the popular girl in middle school make fun of an outcast for wearing the wrong clothes, except the underdog smacks the girl in the face with rhetorical strategies. Herbert tries to appeal to ethos because Coca-Cola is a large company, and he wanted to show the power they had even though they were "worried" about the company's advertising campaign being hurt.
ReplyDeleteThe first letter was very simple and easy to follow. Herbert uses examples of how they use their slogan, but instead of proposing a solution he wants Seaver to completely discontinue the use of the company's slogan. Instead of proving his point and backing himself up, Herbert straight up tells Seaver to stop. He was not completely persuasive, as shown in Seaver's response. The tone used in the first letter was very stern, again to show Coke's authority. These are pretty much the only strategies used in the first letter.
Seaver uses satire and wit to prove his point in the second letter. He also throws in a little bit of attitude to show that a large company like Coca-Cola could not phase him. Seaver's letter is much more thought out and formalized. He uses sarcasm when he says, "I can fully understand that the public might be confused by our use of the expression, and mistake a book by a Harlem schoolteacher for a six-pack of Coca-Cola" to show how ridiculous Herbert was being. He uses relevant examples to prove his point, and provides witty solutions to Herbert's problem.
Herbert thought Coca-Cola had more authority because of their brand name, but Seaver showed him how appealing to ethos can show true authority by how a letter is written. Both of these letters use rhetorical strategies, but Seaver uses his more logically to provide a more convincing stance. Even though Coca-Cola's company threw the first punch at Grove Press for using their slogan, Seaver came back with the knockout.
Morgan,
DeleteYou started with an analogy just like me! You used good vocab throughout the whole blog. The last sentence is perfect. Good job!
Both of these letters are discussing the matter of who should get to use the slogan "The real thing" but the tone and overall effect of the two letters are drastically different.
ReplyDeleteThe Coca-Cola letter exudes confidence and authority. It is evident that because they are a well known company they think they are better and more important. The tone of their letter was more formal and there was a type of scolding aspect in it as well. Coke was putting the Grove Press company down and speaking to them the way an adult would speak to a toddler. They rely mainly on authority, pushing around Grove Press and trying to intimidate them into submission. The last sentence just shows how much they think they have "won" with Grove Press. "We appreciate your cooperation and your assurance that you will discontinue the use of 'It's the real thing.' " The smugness in this sentence, is almost unbearable. Coke simply assumes that Grove Press will not fight back and that they will stop because Coke told them to.
However, Grove Press, in the words of Mrs. Messineo, gives Coca-Cola the "double middle finger." Grove Press uses sarcasm and forms of satire to stick it Coca-Cola. They make promises about workers asking customers about the correct product, and tell Coke that using their slogan would help their business and people would buy more Coke. Grove Press uses many good examples and a quote to end with, just to prove their point. There is a clear annoyance in the tone of the Grove Press letter, but they channel their anger into a great argument back at the Coca-Cola company.
The Grove Press letter is much more persuasive in my opinion. They use some humor and their argument just makes more sense. They do not take the fight laying down. Their second sentence just shows how irritated they are by the request, and it shows how ridiculous the Coca-Cola argument is in the first place. "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 Harlem schoolteacher for a six-pack of Coca-Cola." The Grove Press did the right thing by fighting back, because with large corporations like Coca-Cola, many people would cower away and apologize for the issue. Grove Press stood up for themselves and made a better argument than Coca-Cola ever could.
I never thought of looking at it in this way, by comparing the tone of each letter and then analyzing the strategies to determine which one was better. You provided evidence from each letter and used it to support yourself. Of course, I agree that the Grove Pree letter was better because its sarcasm!
DeleteIn this letter in regards to the use of the slogan "It's the real thing," a minor dispute through letters resulted. Ira C. Herbert wrote to Richard Seaver because Cocoa Cola made up that slogan in 1954. Herbert asked Grove Press Inc. to remove the slogan from their book. Herbert appealed mostly to ethos by claiming how long they have used the slogan and the success of such a big company like Cocoa Cola. They expected them to stop with a simple letter because they probably have had to do it before. Their logos included the fact that it has been their slogan for such a long time. They seemed like they expected Grove Press to just roll over and stop using it. Not many small companies are willing to challenge such a big company. They did not expect the response that they got.
ReplyDeleteRichard Seaver's response was probably the starkest response I have ever read in my life. His response had little ethos in it, he did not challenge them in a way that Cocoa Cola could find, instead he used wit in order to continue using the slogan. He said that it was legal to use the slogan because he would tell his sales people to make sure when they were purchasing the book they weren't actually asking for a Coke. He assured the company that when people are buying the book they were not actually trying to buy the Cocoa Cola product. Seaver seemed kind of mad an stuck up about it like it was a waste of his time to answer. Herbert and Seaver's letters both gave me the impression that they felt they were wasting their time by responding.
Seaver appealed to all logic and used little ethos to back himself up where as Herbert relied only on ethos and little logos. Cocoa Cola was definitely trying to intimidate Grove Press and make them feel smaller and insignificant. Grove Press fought back in a way the shocked Cocoa Cola and anyone who read this piece. They were not backing down at all, rather standing up for what they thought was rightfully theirs.
Makenzie,
DeleteI agree with the comment you made, the letters were a waste of time. I thought the Coca-Cola letter had more logos than ethos, which was different than what you thought. Your last paragraph is very strong. Good job!
I never stopped to think that this was probably not the first time Coke wrote another letter to a company regarding an issue similar to this until you pointed it out. I agree that Coke probably wasn't expecting the response that they were give. I do think that Grove Press Inc. appealed to ethics better than you gave them credit for though.
ReplyDeleteMackenzie,
DeleteThey were definitely trying to make Grove press seem like they were nothing. That is what they relied on throughout their entire paper. I did not get the impression that they thought that it was a waste of time to reply to the Coke company, but mabe you saw something that I did not. I enjoyed reading your blog.
Both of these letters use many rhetorical strategies in their argument. Coke is trying to defend its right to use the phrase "It's the Real Thing." Coke uses two main rhetorical strategies in their letter, ethos and logos. Their use of ethos is just that they are in fact Coca-Cola, they are a large corporation going after the little guy for the use of their phrase. In their appeal to logos, they write about when they came up with the phrase and how long they've been using it, "'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." Coke's letter was something you would find rather businesslike and professional.
ReplyDeleteThe second letter is from Grove Press defending their use of the phrase using vast amounts of satire. When defending themselves from Coke they make point of expressing the fact that they are a book company and their use of "It's the Real Thing" will not differentiate from Coke sales, for no one would confuse their book with a six pack of Coke. They even go on to say how they company vote and of a vote ration of seven to six, they do not care if people see their ad and go out and buy a coke instead of their book. Gove Press goes on to say that they never used their slogan. That Peter S. Prescott used the slogan in a review for their book. This is their way of saying that in no way are they infringing on any of Coke's copyrights.
In the end, I think Grove Press had the better argument. In no way would a person get confused between the book and Coca-Cola, and they made other good points like that too. However, I think they could have done so in a more professional manner.
Zac,
DeleteI think the thing that stuck out the most for me was your last sentence. I agree that they were both very unprofessional and could have been handled a lot better than it was.
I also agree that no one would confuse the two products because they are no where near being similar.
DeleteI think that the man representing the Coca Cola company got the response he should have. Just because they are the Coca Cola company does not mean that they have the right to boss people around. In the end of their letter they did not even seem like they were asking for the book company to stop using the catch line. They were very confident that the company would stop using it without any problems. Asking in a more polite tone would have been a better approach. The only thing that the Coke company has going for them is ethos. They try to use their authority to get the other company to surrender the phrase. One could argue that they were using some logos as well. With a little bit of reasoning, one would realize that the book company probably made a bad move choosing the same punch line as a multi-billion dollar soda company. The book publishers had a great comeback. Why do their catch phrases have to be different? Who was going to mistake a book for a bottle of Coke? Richard Seaver wrote, "Accordingly, 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." That is a very sassy comment to send to such a large company, but I think it puts the Coke company's request into perspective pretty well. The letter written in response to the Coca-Cola Company appeals to logos the most because their letter was well thought out and it was logical while the other letter was not logical at all. The second of the letters was hilarious. I think they took a lots of consideration into how they were going to make the people representing the Coke company look like fools. In that way they succeeded at bringing pathos into their letter. In the end, the letter written in response to the request of the soft drink company was more persuasive. The Coca-Cola company relied too much on the fact that they were a giant corporation rather than making a good case for themselves.
ReplyDeleteI also thought that the second letter was funny because they pretty much called them idiots! Good blog
DeleteFrom these two representatives, they both use many rhetorical devices. I believe the response from Mr. Seaver was spot on. He uses a strategy of which seemed like 2 kids fighting at the playground. In the second letter there was a great response because first his apologized for the delay in answer and then straight into the dog fight. He discussed in sarcasm that Americans will most likely mistake buying a book with buying a bottle of pop. This set his tone using logos. He then uses ethos because he explained how this should help the Coke company rather then drag it down. Anytime someone hears the slogan they already know that it is for Coke. So basically they are receiving free advertisement. I believe the first argument was not as clear or as strong as the second one.
ReplyDeleteThis conversation is like Marco Rubio responding to an absurd comment made by Donald Trump. Coca-Cola is Donald Trump and Grove Press is Marco Rubio. I believe Grove Press, obviously a smaller company than the corporate Coca-Cola, out smarted the executives at Coca-Cola.
ReplyDeleteCoco-Cola pointed out, respectfully I will add, that several people called to their attention the similarities between the two companies slogans. The Coca-Cola executive used appeals to logos, citing specific dates pertaining to the slogan, “It’s the Real Thing”. In Coco-Cola’s defense, no one likes when they are copied, the originality is lost from the person, or in this case the company. I do believe Ira C. Herbert was respectful in the letter to Grove Press, but the complaint was irrelevant, a book and soda pop are two totally different products. Most likely these two products are not advertised in the same locations.
“Accordingly, 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.” This is a quote from Richard Seaver of Grove Press. This sentence has so much sass I love it. Seaver is respectfully saying to Ira C. Herbert that is complaint is irrelevant. Seaver explained the copied line actually came from a quote from a review of the book.
I understand why Coca-Cola did not want their slogan, “It’s the Real Thing”, to be copied by another company. But Grove Press pointed out to the executives of Coca-Cola the two products, soda pop and a book, would not be conflict for consumers. Grove Press was more persuasive in their letter writing back to Coca-Cola.
Elise,
DeleteI really like the comparison of Rubio and Trump I think it is a very good comparison. I agree that there was so much sass in the response and I also liked it. Great blog!