Seaver over Herbert Two different companies, one slogan. Seaver versus Herbert, both attempting to prove their points by translating their purpose in different tones and by having different wishes of outcome. Herbert wishes for Seaver to no longer correlate the slogan first used by the Coca-Cola company, “It’s the Real Thing”. Seaver by disagreeing with Herbert, on how there is a freedom of advertisement meaning that Seaver should be allowed to still use the slogan that Coke considered to be theirs. Seaver is being more persuasive in his letter by proving his point and leaving no question unanswered while managing to incorporate sarcasm, satire, and voice/tone. To start off, the advertisement disagreement first unfolded when the book publishers
…show more content…
Seaver used examples of times where other companies did the same “foul play” with advertisements and mentioned how often companies do not make a big deal about it. Seaver delivered sardonic tone by establishing that, “ Accordingly, we have instructed all our salesman 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 a book, rather than a Coke” (Seaver 6-10). Seaver’s letter was packed with literary language and establish the voice. Seaver was able to get irony, satire, and exaggeration across his letter. Seaver was also able to demonstrate that they have the full right to continue to use the slogan that is “Coke’s”, “Given our strong sentiments concerning the First Amendments, we will defend to the death your right to use ‘It’s the real thing’ in any advertising you care to” (Seaver 30-32). Implying Seavers sarcasms once again which can be mainly seen as Seavers attempting to prove his point of why using the same slogan would hurt neither companies. In many ways the second letter written by Seaver was actually persuasive because it made the Coca-Cola representative at least rationalize with what they initially
Seaver used examples of times where other companies did the same “foul play” with advertisements and mentioned how often companies do not make a big deal about it. Seaver delivered sardonic tone by establishing that, “ Accordingly, we have instructed all our salesman 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 a book, rather than a Coke” (Seaver 6-10). Seaver’s letter was packed with literary language and establish the voice. Seaver was able to get irony, satire, and exaggeration across his letter. Seaver was also able to demonstrate that they have the full right to continue to use the slogan that is “Coke’s”, “Given our strong sentiments concerning the First Amendments, we will defend to the death your right to use ‘It’s the real thing’ in any advertising you care to” (Seaver 30-32). Implying Seavers sarcasms once again which can be mainly seen as Seavers attempting to prove his point of why using the same slogan would hurt neither companies. In many ways the second letter written by Seaver was actually persuasive because it made the Coca-Cola representative at least rationalize with what they initially