The exchange of letters between Richard Seaver and Ira Herbert is a short conversation on the right to a slogan for advertising. Mr Herbert from Coca-Cola expressed his wish that Grove Press would discontinue their use of "It's the real thing" since Coke had used it long before Grove Press. Seaver's response was a sarcastic explanation of steps that will be taken and methods to avoid confusion. Because of the tone presented in Seaver's response, Herbert's letter appears much better written and more appropriate for the situation.
Herbert begins his letter by explaining how he was notified of an advertisement that used a slogan already in use. He references how long the slogan has been running and how it has been advertised to prove that …show more content…
Seaver's response was not held to the same standards. Although the diction appears complex and professional, the tone of the letter is entirely sarcastic. The solutions he proposes are not reasonable nor would they be effective. Seacer says "We have discussed this problem in an executive committee meeting, and by a cote of seven to six decided that..." Although yo ucan't knwo this to be untrue, you can infer that this is another sarcastic comment an dno real discussin of actions was held. He then references an incident of advertisements that used their concepts and states that they are a much larger issue. This is meant to discredit the idea that the use is a hinderence to both companies. The final paragraph is the only paragraph that wold accomplish anything. If Seaver would have taken that and expanded on how they quoted a different source and were unaware of the conflict, the argument would be much more sound. Instead, the letter comes off as childish and rude.
Herbert's letter would be seen as more persuasive in any situation. It's professional, well thought out, and is logically based. Seaver's retort is only menat to instigate and says nothing of actually reaching a resolution. It's purpose was only to create a snappy
Herbert begins his letter by explaining how he was notified of an advertisement that used a slogan already in use. He references how long the slogan has been running and how it has been advertised to prove that …show more content…
Seaver's response was not held to the same standards. Although the diction appears complex and professional, the tone of the letter is entirely sarcastic. The solutions he proposes are not reasonable nor would they be effective. Seacer says "We have discussed this problem in an executive committee meeting, and by a cote of seven to six decided that..." Although yo ucan't knwo this to be untrue, you can infer that this is another sarcastic comment an dno real discussin of actions was held. He then references an incident of advertisements that used their concepts and states that they are a much larger issue. This is meant to discredit the idea that the use is a hinderence to both companies. The final paragraph is the only paragraph that wold accomplish anything. If Seaver would have taken that and expanded on how they quoted a different source and were unaware of the conflict, the argument would be much more sound. Instead, the letter comes off as childish and rude.
Herbert's letter would be seen as more persuasive in any situation. It's professional, well thought out, and is logically based. Seaver's retort is only menat to instigate and says nothing of actually reaching a resolution. It's purpose was only to create a snappy