Rhetorical Analysis Of Mr. Seaver's Correspondence Letters

With the countless number of slogans, it is often difficult to determine who has the right to a particular slogan. As a result, companies often argue over the right to their slogans. The correspondence letters between Mr. Herbert of the Coca-Cola Company and Mr. Seaver of Grove Press serve to highlight one of these arguments. In the correspondence letters, both company representatives use various rhetorical techniques to argue their point of view on the right to use the now-famous “It’s the real thing!” slogan. Ultimately, however, Mr. Seaver creates a witty rejoinder through the use of sarcasm and mockery that is more persuasive than the seemingly logical argument of Mr. Herbert.
In the first letter, Mr. Herbert urges Mr. Seaver to cease the …show more content…
Seaver responds to Mr. Herbert by creating a persuasive argument filled on sarcasm and mockery that reveals the logical flaws and absurdity of Mr. Herbert’s argument. Notably, Mr. Seaver’s argument is ultimately so effective that it ends the conversation between Mr. Herbert and him. In his initial attack on Mr. Herbert’s argument, Mr. Seaver wittily replies, “I can fully understand that the public might be confused…and mistake a book by a Harlem schoolteacher for a six-pack of Coca-Cola. Accordingly, we have…to make sure that what the customer wants is the book, rather than a Coke.” He exposes the incoherence in Mr. Herbert’s seemingly logical argument by cleverly connecting Herbert’s reasonable yet broad claim that the simultaneous use of a slogan with different products can create confusion to the situation at hand in which the two different products are a book and a soda. He uses sarcasm when he expresses his ‘understanding’ for the ‘need’ to ask bookstore customers about their choice to create a humorous yet ridiculous image that accentuates Mr. Herbert’s illogic. Mr. Seaver then proceeds to mock, “We would certainly not want to dilute the distinctiveness of your trade slogan nor diminish its effectiveness as an advertising and merchandising tool.” Mr. Seaver essentially copies the language of Mr. Herbert’s central claim to explicitly target and undermine its strength. Mr. Seaver then uses his running sarcasm to comically suggest that, contrary to Mr. Herbert’s argument, the confusion between his book and soda might actually be beneficial to the Coca-Cola Company. Mr. Seaver’s comical suggestion further demonstrates the absurdity of Mr. Herbert’s argument that people might confuse books with sodas. Eventually, Mr. Seaver transitions from humorous irony and mockery to a more serious discussion about