A Rhetorical Analysis Of Herbert And Seaver's Letters

Mr. Herbert’s initial letter is written formally, and he constructs the persona similar to that of a big brother who is bossing

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

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

These devices made Seavers letter more convincing to the audience because he made logical points that made sense to the audience. For example, I do agree that it's rare for someone to order a book and get can of Coke by mistake. The use of satire in the letter helps convince the audience that the claims that Herbert's made arents as serious as they seem. They are two very different products that can be advertised with the same slogan and remain different to the public and buyers of them. Also as Seaver explains in his letter, they both have the right to used the slogan they wish to because of the First Amendment. So not only does Seaver have a better argument but also has more logical points than Herbert´s.

Companies desire to keep the originality of their products so they can appeal to their consumers positively. Ira C. Herbert, an executive for the Coca Cola Company, presents himself as a notable person with authority. On March 25, 1970, Herbert wrote a letter to Mr. R. W. Seaver asking him to “stop using the theme or slogan in connection with the book” (line 7). The writer is contemplative throughout his letter in order to clarify the issue that he wants resolved. Herbert speaks for the company when he writes, “We believe you will agree that it is undesirable for our companies to make simultaneous use of It’s the Real Thing” in connection with our respective products”(lines 8-10). In other words, the author suggests the expression

In the conclusion of Herbert's letter he asserts dominance and believes that they will stop using the slogan “It’s the Real Thing” to advertise a book called “Diary of a Harlem Schoolteacher.” Herbert asserts dominance by stating that they’re unable to use the slogan because it belongs to them and has been used by Coca-Cola in the past. Herbert assumes that Seaver will stop using the slogan by stating “We appreciate your cooperation and your assurance that you will discontinue the use of “It’s the real thing””(lines 26-27). He doesn’t want the slogan to be used for the books advertisement because it could be confusing for customers. The tone that is used in Herbert's letter to Seaver is authoritative and informal. It’s authoritative because

While Herbert uses logic, historical allusions, facts and above all power to aid him in persuading Seaver to discontinue the use of the slogan, Seaver relies on other rhetorical techniques such as sarcasm, pathos, alliterations, irony, and hyperboles in his defense. Seavers opening statement in the first paragraph “We note with sympathy your feeling that you have a proprietary interest in the phrase “It’s the 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” exudes sarcasm. Though Seaver pretends to have sympathy for the situation, he makes it clear from the start that he thinks Herberts request is preposterous because the two products are completely different, and the

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.

“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

The business world at times shows a complicated and unpredictable side to its field of work. The issue between Coca-Cola and the novel "Diary of a Harlem Schoolteacher," over the use of "it's the real thing," became amusing. The letters defend each side of the argument. Richard Seaver composed a more influential letter. This becomes evident by looking at both writers use of rhetorical strategies.

The letter is argumentative, but solely with personal backing. The reader is invited into Hanchett’s daily and family life, where he explains his personal relation

Herbert explains that when using the slogan for any other company besides Coca-Cola is a serious issue that will not be taken lightly, in hopes that the Grove Press will be open to discussing the matter and resolving it. Herbert expresses that the slogan can cause confusion on directed audiences and how it should have restricted usage on non Coca-Cola products. In addressing Mr. Seaver, Ira C. Herbert quotes, “it necessary..to use another line to advertise Mr. Haskins book”; the tone embedded in the text shows a statement without discussion. The significance of the quote shows the authors dogmatic tone and hostile manner from using the slogan for Mr. Haskins book. Seaver claims that the slogan is ¨merely¨ a phrase anyone can remark and that

. . , Ford Motors, and the United Fruit Company” (Fernandez 3; line 4, 5, and 7). The corporations are imagery of “consumeristic propaganda” (Hawkins 43).

As an illustration, in the letter in paragraph 2, the author writes, ¨…..I can fully understand that the public might be confused by our use of expression, and mistake a book by a Harken schoolteacher for a six-pack of Coca-Cola¨ (para 2). Basically, Seaver says that it is absurd to ever conclude that an intellectual book will be confused with cans of sodas. The author includes this fact to emphasize that they are not going to change their slogan due to the fact that they believe people are going to get it confuse since they use the ¨It's The Real Thing¨ phrase before them. Additionally, on the first paragraph Seaver appreciate their concern and is aware of their sympathy, but they are not going to change anything because they misinterpret the main idea. In other words, the book publisher is not going to do anything about it, but credits their concern about the slogan that they claim, belongs to

An example of this is Herbert’s looking towards the Bible for stylistic inspiration rather than to alien imagery and ideas of Donne. Another very important and distinctive characteristic of the poetry is Herbert’s introduction of two quiet final lines, resolving the previously mentioned argument within the poem, without answering any specific points mentioned. The doubts in faith and religion are expressed in intellectual terms by Donne, and the argument is answered in this intellectual style too. Herbert, although occasionally exploring the doubts in an intellectual manner, answers his doubts with emotion. In this specific way, Herbert conveys an explicit insight that one is unable to argue or reason with God; one is aware of God’s presence or one lacks this awareness and guidance.