Hook? In both of the letters between Grove Press and the Coca-Cola Company, there is a conflict over the use of the slogan, “It’s the real thing.” The letters are between Ira C. Herbert, the representative of the Coca-Cola Company and Richard Seaver, Vice President of Grove Press. Herbert initiated the discussion in a letter directed to Richard Seaver in order to address his concerns over two companies using the same slogan because it will create confusion among the consumers. Due to the confusion, it will cause, Herbert consequently encourages Grove Press to halt their use of ‘their’ slogan. The ultimate, persuasive argument between both of the letters is Richard Seaver’s. Through the continuous use of exaggeration, mockery, and distinct
…show more content…
He is making fun of Herbert's perspective of the public. He taunts Herbert's belief, that a buyer will not be able to distinguish between the two products, even when one product is a beverage and the other is a book, used for entertainment. In order to accomplish he informs Herbert that they will have a sales employees make sure, “that what the customer wants is the book, rather than the coke.” He uses this in his argument in order to strengthen that since two companies are using a similar phrase for their advertisements, the buyers of the book will most likely not go out and buy a Coke rather than buying the book just because they view a similarity in the use of, “Its the real thing.” Words are powerful, but if someone is intending to buy a book and glimpse at an advertisement with, “It’s the real thing,” the buyer is not going to drop what they are doing, leave the store and head out to buy a soda or the other way around. Slogans can be powerful but in the end, not everyone pays attention to them. He highlights the importance of that in order to perfectly defend his opinion and challenge Herbert’s. He even reaches the extent, of after mocking him, to attempt and seem to gain a reaction out of Herbert when he tells him that in a meeting, a wining of 7 to 6 agreed to give COCa Cola a free advertisement in their …show more content…
The first piece of evidence he uses is the First Amendment, which clearly declares our freedom of speech. The use of the First Amendment strengthens his argument owing to the fact that it is very difficult to contradict a document that is the basis of the democracy that we live in. The First Amendment guarantees to all, their right to express themselves, and that includes Grove Press advertising with a similar slogan. Not only that, but he also states that they were in their right due to the fact that they “were not aware” that Coca-Cola owned the phrase, when clearly Seaver must have done enough research, to know that the Coca COla COmpany does not own the use of, “It's the real thing.” By including this final blow to his concluding statement, he not only strengthens his argument but shows superiority over Herbert's argument. Since he is aware, that the Cola Company did not trademark the use to “It’s the real thing,” he comprehends that they are fully in the right to use the slogan, even if COca COla has been using it since 1945. Additionally, he relates to what Herbert might be concerned about by sharing a similar experience, in order demonstrate that they ‘ understand’ the concern they may be
He is making fun of Herbert's perspective of the public. He taunts Herbert's belief, that a buyer will not be able to distinguish between the two products, even when one product is a beverage and the other is a book, used for entertainment. In order to accomplish he informs Herbert that they will have a sales employees make sure, “that what the customer wants is the book, rather than the coke.” He uses this in his argument in order to strengthen that since two companies are using a similar phrase for their advertisements, the buyers of the book will most likely not go out and buy a Coke rather than buying the book just because they view a similarity in the use of, “Its the real thing.” Words are powerful, but if someone is intending to buy a book and glimpse at an advertisement with, “It’s the real thing,” the buyer is not going to drop what they are doing, leave the store and head out to buy a soda or the other way around. Slogans can be powerful but in the end, not everyone pays attention to them. He highlights the importance of that in order to perfectly defend his opinion and challenge Herbert’s. He even reaches the extent, of after mocking him, to attempt and seem to gain a reaction out of Herbert when he tells him that in a meeting, a wining of 7 to 6 agreed to give COCa Cola a free advertisement in their …show more content…
The first piece of evidence he uses is the First Amendment, which clearly declares our freedom of speech. The use of the First Amendment strengthens his argument owing to the fact that it is very difficult to contradict a document that is the basis of the democracy that we live in. The First Amendment guarantees to all, their right to express themselves, and that includes Grove Press advertising with a similar slogan. Not only that, but he also states that they were in their right due to the fact that they “were not aware” that Coca-Cola owned the phrase, when clearly Seaver must have done enough research, to know that the Coca COla COmpany does not own the use of, “It's the real thing.” By including this final blow to his concluding statement, he not only strengthens his argument but shows superiority over Herbert's argument. Since he is aware, that the Cola Company did not trademark the use to “It’s the real thing,” he comprehends that they are fully in the right to use the slogan, even if COca COla has been using it since 1945. Additionally, he relates to what Herbert might be concerned about by sharing a similar experience, in order demonstrate that they ‘ understand’ the concern they may be