http://www.lettersofnote.com/2013/07/its-real-thing.html
The following letters constitute the complete
correspondence between an executive of the Coca-Cola company and a
representative of Grove Press. Read the letters carefully. Then in your blog analyze the rhetorical strategies each writer uses to achieve his purpose and
explain which letter offers the more persuasive case.
Writing can be extremely powerful, but in order to make a credible argument, it must be backed up with many different rhetorical devices. The second letter that was a reply to the one written by Ira C. Herbert was a lot more effective than the one written to convince the book people to stop using the phrase "It's the real thing."
ReplyDeleteHerbert's letter was organized in a nice way. The problem was stated in a one sentence paragraph so it stood out to the audience. They appealed to logic with historical information on the use of the slogan. This article, however, was lacking emotion and was not in the least bit convincing. They simply said that they should not use the slogan and did not go in depth about why. In no way did this letter make it seem like an important matter, but rather a simple suggestion.
The second letter written in reply to the Coca-Cola company way ingenious. It was filled with irony and satire. They said sarcastically that they never took into account that someone would "mistake a book by a Harlem schoolteacher for a six-pack of Coca-Cola." They later went on to say that if this did happen, it would be a good advertisement for their product. They backed up this information with an informal poll, adding to the satire. Lastly, they appealed to logic by mentioning the first amendment. Also, the second letter stated the other side's point of view to start out with a counter argument.This argument was very simple but proved to outshine the previous one with the satire included in the writing.
Arguments are not always fun to read or listen to, especially if you do not care about the problem or if you are completely stuck on one side of the argument without any room for a change of mind. The way an argument is written really can make the one side seem like the better option even if it is not, which is why the second letter was a lot more appealing.
Grace, I agree. The second letter, the response, seemed to out due the first because of the use of satire. The first letter was still effective but it did not have that same flare as the second one, it stated the beliefs but did not use the irony, satire or other devices as effectively as the second letter. One thing I did like about the first letter though was the confidence in the last paragraph because it showed assertiveness and little bit or, lack for a better word, sass. This "sass" kind of made you think more about what was being said. But then when reading the response to Herbert's letter we can find similar confidence, indirectly, in the use of satire. I think these letters can demonstrate to us that an effective use of rhetoric can help strengthen an argument.
DeleteGrace, I agree that the counterargument was very well organized and thought out. The informal poll added a lot to the satire, and made it seem even more ridiculous that they were even discussing it. I don't really care about this problem, but I do think that it was one of the "more fun" arguments that we have read.
DeleteIt is true that, even if one is completely uninterested in a particular topic, listening to an argument regarding that topic can really sway them in one direction. This fact also emphasizes the need to include rhetorical devices in an argument so as to make it strong and convincing. The way that one presents an argument has a great deal to do with another's final decision. It should be the goal of an individual to convince even the most impartial individual that their standpoint is the better one.
DeleteGrace, I think that the whole counter argument aspect of the letter is the most important part. I know that when I am reading a document, the refutation really brings home the point. This is because you can see the failt of the opposition's views. Counterarguments, if used in the correct way can sway the opinion of anybody.
DeleteRhetoric is found all throughout life whether it is in daily conversations, stories on the news, or through any other form of communication. In the two letters about the slogan "It's the real thing...," the two writers use rhetorical devices in different ways to try and achieve their purpose for the argument. The two letters use different types of rhetorical devices and the way the devices are used allows one writer to portray a stronger message.
ReplyDeleteThe first letter written by Ira C. Herbert, uses little rhetoric his letter, but his message still gets across. In the first paragraph, he states the issue at hand so the reader understands why this letter is written and how he feels on the subject at hand. Using small paragraphs he allows him self to be organized, quick, and to the point with a new point to the argument in each paragraph. Herbert uses historical allusions in reference to the first use of the Coca-Cola slogan. By using these allusions it shows that he has knowledge and credibility to what he is saying. In the end, the last paragraph, Ira Herbert makes the statement that they appreciate "corporation and assurance" when referring to the discontinuing of the slogan.
Though Ira C. Herbert's letter was effective, the letter written by Richard Seaver was written in a much more effective manor. When writing in response to Herbert, Seaver uses a form of satire throughout the whole letter because his response is, in a way, because some of his remarks were witty and humorous. Seaver uses other devices such as irony and historical references to further his response. Irony was found in statements such as when the mention the fact that their product may be confused with that of Coca-Cola. Historical references were used when discussing past experiences in which their titles were used. This statement of past experiences helps show to them that Coca-Cola's situation was not as direct as some of theirs.
The two letters both had different styles and different purposes, but in the style and use of rhetoric the second letter was found to be more persuasive than the first. Although the first did achieve their purpose, the did not go to the extent the second letter did when trying to persuade the other. However, I in a way found appreciation for the first letter because of the confidence in their final statement, but the overall letter could have used more devices. The two devices achieved their purpose and showed me that using devices can help my side of an argument or help persuade someone to my side.
Seaver's letter did have a much more effective flow, as well as had the rhetorical devices to back it up. The sarcasm makes the letter witty and eye catching. It also does reflect Herbert's lack of knowledge. How can you confuse pop with a book? The second letter was definitely more persuasive.
DeleteBoth letters did achieve the purpose they wanted to have. Like many of us believe, the second one was better than the first becuase of the rhetorical devices that were inside the letter. It gave it the touch it needed to be better than the other letter. Although it didn't need much to be better than the other one becuase it did not have many strong points.
DeleteThe simple use of rhetorical devices is not always enough to convince a reader of an author's point of view. The first letter did have some rhetorical devices, but it was the second that was more convincing. I believe this is because of the satire. Satire often convinces people to take a side far faster than a structured argument. A lengthy paper and a short satire may both convince a reader, but the satire is faster and more enjoyable. However, not every argument can be satirized. Some arguments require lengthy discussion and discourse. For the sake of this augment, satire was the best choice in presenting their argument and winning support.
DeleteRichard Seaver's response to Ira Herbert is very sarcastic, but also very fitting. He starts out the letter saying, "I can see why someone may mistake a six-pack of coke for a book about a Harlem school teacher. If a person comes in, we make sure that they want the coke, and aren't confusing the drink with the book." This establishes a sarcastic, yet to the point response. Clearly, Seaver thinks it is ridiculous to confuse a book with coke. How can a person not tell the difference between the two, considering they are two completely different things? This is a great example of satire. He gives a historical allusion to the First Amendment citing freedom of speech. Both companies have the right to speak to their mind. He also uses an appeal to authority when he talks about voting on the issue with the other execs from press company. The with the use of sarcasm also evokes logos and pathos. It is logical because people know you can't confuse a book with coke. The sarcasm evokes pathos, and also makes people laugh and realize how ridiculous Ira is.
ReplyDeleteThe second letter lacks any rhetorical devices. It basically explains why Coke chose the slogan, and how it has nothing to do with the book. The press company also says that they don't want to be associated with Coke in the fear that people may think they are part of some big endorsement deal. However, they neglect to think of the fact that sometimes multiple slogans can be used for different things, being in no way similar to each other. Ira doesn't really give any concrete or mind-blowing reasons on why they should quit using the slogan, and without the rhetorical strategies, the letter is rather boring and unappealing.
The first letter is written rather plainly and does not include very many rhetorical devices, making it less effective in my opinion. Ira states in his letter that he would very much appreciate Seaver discontinuing the use of the slogan "it's the real thing." He appeals to logos a few times when discussing the historical aspects of the slogan by stating specific dates and events. The reason that Ira's letter is so unconvincing is mainly due to the absence of rhetorical devices. He simply states his request, offers little support by briefly mentioning the initial use of the slogan, and then restates his request quite plainly.
ReplyDeleteThe second letter, in contrast, is much more colorful, and therefore, much more convincing. In his letter, Seaver utilizes the rhetorical strategies of satire as well as irony. Both of these devices are quite prevalent in the way that Seaver words his letter. For example, Seaver satirically criticizes Ira for his suggestion that one may confuse a box of Cocoa Cola with a book. He uses imagery to depict an individual entering a bookstore asking for "Diary of a Harlem Schoolteacher" only to be met with an inquiry as to whether or not they would like to purchase a box of Cocoa Cola. This specific statement also contains a hint of satire, as Seaver's sole purpose was to ridicule Ira's statement.
These two letters quite blatantly depict the effects that rhetorical devices can have on any given piece. The first letter, as it lacks in rhetorical devices, is rather unconvincing. The second letter, however, is much more appealing due to its colorful language and clever word usage. When attempting to make a convincing argument, it is clear that the use of rhetoric devices is necessary.
The second letter really proves that adding rhetorical devices to anything can make it have the much needed spark. Becuase of the second letter having the spark, we can all notice that it is the one that catches our minds the most. The satire is one that was very persuasive to me becuase of it making the situation seem ridiculous to argue about.
DeleteI agree that the lack of rhetorical devices is what undermined the first letter. With just a few rhetorical devices, that letter would have had a much stronger argument. Arguments need to be exciting and more than just a statement of a request. When there is room for disagreement, one needs to ensure that their opponent cannot disagree. The only way to do this is by skillfully presenting an argument through the use of rhetoric.
DeleteWhen an argument is taking place, it is hard not to pick out the winning side at the beginning. With the use of rhetorical strategies, one could find which side was the most effective. Both letters about the Coca-Cola slogan and book reference capture the points that needed to be made. In order to tell which letter was more effective, the rhetorical strategies need to be picked out. This will show which one was the most successful in achieving their goal.
ReplyDeleteIn Herbert's letter, he makes sure to state his points quickly. They are to the point in what he is addressing. One can see this with the use of his shorter paragraphs that develop into his to the point approach. He allows adds allusions to back up his points which shows his credibility of the problem is talking about.
Seaver on the other hand, takes the letter with a more Satirical approach and allows for the letter to be more persuasive than the other letter. His satirical remarks can be seen when he talks about many coming into a book store, how they would be buying books, not a Coke. He also uses many historical allusions that relate to many other similar situations that occurred in the past. Another main strong point in the essay is the way they place the first amendment into the essay to add an extra space of credibility.
Both letters have a impact, but the Seaver essay is more persuasive than the Herbert letter. The satire in the letter also allows the second letter to stand out against the first. This ether also is written like there is no problem with the slogans being the same. This is what gives it the persuasive side the letter needed.
Some arguments may be difficult to tell which one is better than the other. With these two letters it was evident which one was the better of the two. In harder situations, just look for rhetorical devices and the stronger essay will be found.
Maddie, I like the point you made on how both articles are effective but how the second one stands out because it shows that the slogan truly does not matter that much. This is very true because in the first letter by Herbert it shows how the slogan can only be for one company, but Seaver showed examples he has dealt with prior and in more severe cases than this one at hand. Having a different view on the topic allows for more attention and appreciation on the topic. This allows readers to sway towards his side.
DeleteRhetoric is able to turn dull pieces of text into persuasive arguments, stealing the interest of a reader and expanding their views. Without the use of rhetoric, text becomes bland and unconvincing. Viewers have no desire to read it, and are unconvinced by its arguments. Rhetoric is an essential part of effective writing.
ReplyDeleteThe use of rhetorical devices in the first letter was limited. The author used some historical references in order to establish his claim to the phrase "it's the real thing" in order to show that Coca Cola has a long standing claim to the phrase. Over the duration of the letter, the author employs skillful diction. The words are sophisticated and targeted so they do not appear aggressive. They are not passive words, but they are not pushy either. This helps the company to appear understanding, yet firm. In addition, the author employs several rhetorical shifts. The use of first person plural is used for the body of the letter because the author is writing on behalf of the company. There is a small portion which is simply first person, which helps the letter seem more personal.
In the second letter, the author employs excellent satire in order to refuse the demands of the company. The author remarks that, in order to clear up confusion that may arise from the conflicting products, the staff will ensure that customers want a book, and not a pack of Coke. This shows the reader that the author believes their fears about confusion are ludicrous. Another instance of satire is when the author declares that any benefit that the company might have from the confusion will be allotted to them. The author's satire makes the company's fears and demands seem completely unreasonable. The author also makes several historical references. He references several other books that were published that created conflicting phrases.
The second letter was the most persuasive. The skillful use of satire engaged the reader, whereas the first was uninteresting and dull. In addition, the second letter had many reasons as to why the company had no right to exclusive use of the phrase. The first letter was written purely due to the want for money.
I like how you pointed out the diction of the first letter. It was very formal, and I agree that this fact allowed Ira to refrain from being too pushy. It is important for one to present themselves with a certain sophistication in an argument. However, at the same time, it is equally important for one to make their viewpoints heard - even if that means stating what is frowned upon by the opposing side. In the first letter, I feel that Ira was too standoffish and refrained himself, making his argument significantly weaker than it could have been.
DeleteI'm really happy that you pointed out the diction in the first letter, Ashley. The diction in the first letter helps blatantly get the point across. Why asking for something, we do not really need to use metaphors and similes to accomplish what a strong set of words can do all by themselves. Diction helps the argument because words are the most powerful rhetorical strategy, in my eyes at least. If you are unable to to create a proper sentence with free slowing words, you cannot accomplish anything more. It serves as a stepping stone.
DeleteI agree, Ashley, one of the first aspects of the first letter I noticed was the formal diction. I believe this helped the first letter by presenting the argument maturely, where as I believe Seaver went about the argument rather immaturely. In a formal court, satire would need to be extracted from the argument, then the facts are left. The first letter remaining very formal makes the letter sound much more sophisticated and as if they are trying to reach a formal agreement. If the first letter was written satirically, the publishing company would not only remain reluctant to change their slogan, but would probably be a lot more furious at Coco Cola.
DeleteRhetorical devices are the back bones to effective arguments. Each rhetorical device is like a vertebrate making up the spine which gives the piece more support.
ReplyDeleteAside from logos, the first letter was considerably deprived of rhetorical devices. Logos was utilized when the author, Herbert, explained the historical context of CocoCola's slogan, "It's The Real Thing." Logos is also utilized when Herbert explains that both companies having the same quote makes it less effective because it takes away from the originality of the slogan.
The second letter was definitely a satirical, snarky piece. Seaver pokes fun at Herbert's claims of the identical slogan undermining CocoCola's business campaigns through humor. By his satire, Seaver emphasizes his view on the matter that no one is going to get a bottle of a soda confused with a book. By saying, "Accordingly, we have instructed all our salesmen 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 the book, rather than a Coke" (Seaver, para. 2), Seaver humorously reminds CocaCola that the company's products have two different purposes which will prevent them from getting confused, even with the similar slogans. Seaver also uses logos by referencing a historical document, the United States Constitution, to remind Herbert of the company's constitutional right to say what words they wish.
The second letter was more effective in stating their claims and arguing their position due to the evident rhetorical devices prominent in the writing. The rhetorical devices manipulate one's mind by engaging it more and allowing the mind to become more involved in the reading. Seaver's argument had a strong backbone which allowed it to stand strong, where as Herbert's, although understandable, relied solely on either reader comprehending his point of view, so it remained slouched and ineffective.
Lauren, I agree that the second letter was much more effective than the first. As you pointed out, the first one was just "slouched and ineffective" The use of rhetorical strategies made the second one much more appealing to the reader. I really do belivee that this fact is true. Papers devoid of rhetorical strategies can be boring. So obviously the second one which is full of rhetorical strategies would be the much better one.
DeleteThese letters demonstrate an advertising battle between Ira C. Herbert, an executive for Coca-Cola beverages, and Richard Seaver, the Vice President of Grove Press over the slogan, "It's The Real Thing". In this outrage, Herbert writes to Seaver, stating his displeasure that the book recently published by their firm, Diary of A Harlem School Teacher, had used the same slogan that coca-cola had used for years to advertise their beverage. However, the way the Seaver responded to this letter used a good combination of rhetorical strategies in order to get his point across flawlessly.
ReplyDeleteThe first letter uses strong ethos to get the point across that in advertising, everyone has to fight the same battle at some point over the same types of issues. For example, when Herbert states, "We believe you will agree...." he tries to relate to Seaver and his firm. By trying to relate to them, they get that personal connection which could lead to a change of heart for Seaver. This does not work, however.
The second letter consisted mainly of satirical quotes. He starts it right away when he states, "We 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." The satire makes the argument stronger because it shows how extremely irrelevant the points made by Mr. Herbert were.
I believe that Seaver posed a stronger argument because he was able to point out the flaws in the argument that were presented by Herbert. Although Herbert was able to make solid points about this slogan not being used by multiple people, he should have just copy righted it.
Jenna, you made a really good point about the Ethos in the first letter, I didn't even catch on to it. I also think that it was really good how you stated that the publishers were pointing out the flaws with Herbert's letter. After all, rhetorical strategies are the foundation for a good writing, and flaws makes the reasoning behind the writing seem pointless.
DeleteIt is very obvious when reading these two letters which one is more effective. Both letters were able to work towards it purpose but the latter did it in a more expressive and communicable way. Herbert uses logos throughout his letter, structuring his argument very logically. He uses short sentences that work to effectively prove his points. While Herbert puts forth his ideas well, he cannot execute on them because of a lack of connection to the topic. He does not move his audience and his tone is drab throughout.
ReplyDeleteThe second letter shows how passionate the writer is about the topic at hand. The humor used in this letter dramatically contrasts the drabness of the first letter. Also, the humor that is used makes the letter speak to its audience much more. This humor makes the second article the more naturally appealing article. He also uses imagery to give the audience a mental picture about his argument. Also, the second letter uses logos in order to establish the refutation used by the first letter. The second letter was able to state the oppositions views and then work throughout the rest of the document to present evidence against them. This logic with effective in showing the audience the fault in the first letters argument and providing them information on why their own view is right.
Both articles respective in establishing their views. But the second article was more expressive and appealing to the audience through the use of rhetorical devices and humor. While the first argument stated it's believes point by point throughout the article, the Second document displayed the passion that writer had for the topic at hand. The different writing styles were both effective but each in its own way.
Abbey I agree with basically everything you said. And after reading your post, I realized it was ridiculously similar to mine. I see you commented first, so I will apologize for that. But anyway, I really liked how you noticed the imagery. I did not notice it, but after a second read, I did see it. So in conclusion, I really liked the second letter as well. The first letter was just stupid.
DeleteI do not like the word "drab," nor do I prefer drab writing. I do agree that both letters got their point across, but I do not believe that the first one was effective. As Nick said, it is robotic. For this reason, I believe that the author of the second letter was able to take this weakness for his own benefit. Boring writings are easy to make fun of because they are, as you said, unnatural. He used satire not only to form his argument, but also to make the author of the first reconsider her writing style.
DeleteI want to start out by saying that the first letter seems rather robotic. I don't know if that is a rhetorical strategy, but it seemed like it was one of those letters that was just fill-in-the-blank style. So the first letter just sucked.
ReplyDeleteI liked the passion that was displayed in the second letter. He seemd very passionate about using the phrase. I really started out this blog with no idea whose side I'd be on. In fact, I kinda just thought I'd be un-opinionated. But the passion really got me thinking. And I am really on the side of the book company. Coke kinda seemed uninterested.
I also liked the satire displayed throughout the letter. He was very funny and I think that really helped me get on his side. I go back to the robotic tone displayed in the second letter. That turned me off. Humor always makes people feel better. It was genuinely very funny.
So I stated how I felt in the first paragraph. But I will finish off by stating how much I hated the first letter and how much I liked the second letter. Today my grandmother made chicken, and of course I tried it. It was awful but I didn't say anything and I ate it anyway. That's how I felt about the first letter. The second letter made me feel like I was eating cotton candy instead of awful chicken.
Nick, I agree with your standpoint about the satirical letter. I thought that the satire was the reason that I really sided with the publisher. I personally thought that the Coca Cola people were just being stupid. I think that the publishers saw the flaws in the Coca Cola's plain argument.
DeleteThis seemed like an experiment in a way. I did not know about this issue, nor did I care who took the slogan to use for their benefit in the beginning. As you mentioned, the first letter sounds robotic. Although both of these letters are to the point, the first one tries to get the point across with no extra excitement. This "experiment" made me side with the book writer in the second letter because of his rhetorical strategies. It does show how strong words can be. Also, your chicken analogy makes a bit of sense in this case. I am glad you are it without complaining.
DeleteNick, I agree that the first letter seemed like they just filled in the missing pieces and sent it off, as opposed to the second letter which was filled with personal satire that made the presentation appear ridiculous. The satire plays such an important role in the second letter because it makes it more personal and more relatable.
DeleteNick, robotic is the perfect word to describe the first letter. When I read it, nothing really sunk in. I couldn't get past the robotic diction of it. The second article has so much more passion than the first, making it so much more relatable. Also, if one person has that much passion for one topic than it must be something worth looking into. This also makes the second article much more inspiring and easier to read.
DeleteI do agree on disliking the writing style of the first letter, Nick, but I disagree about taking the side of Seaver. Perhaps it is my marketer/merchandiser instincts kicking in, but I feel as if using the same slogan is inappropriate and unnecessary although the products are two completely different products,it is important for companies to develop unique and interesting slogans to set their companies apart to consumers. Therefore, I just believe the book company should have taken initiative to come up with a better idea to allow their book to have a new phrase.
DeleteBoth of these letters have very strong argumentative points. The rhetoric used in both of these pieces really help get their points across. The first letter seemed more professional while the second letter took a satirical stand point.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the first letter did not have as many rhetorical devices as the second, the main points were improved using rhetorical devices. The main rhetorical device used in the first letter was an appeal to Logos. Herbert uses facts about the Coca Cola slogan and says that they had been using "it's the real thing" since the 1940s. By saying this, he is logically stating that the Coca Cola company has the "rights" to the slogan when the book publishers do not. Personally, I think that it is stupid that the Coca Cola company is getting upset about a book using a slogan for a soda. I mean is this really necessary? Who on earth would get a book confused with a soft drink because someone said "it's the real thing?" The publishers just so happen to agree with me.
In the reply letter from the publisher to the Coca Cola company, the letter clearly took a more satirical perspective. The letter informs the company that they intend to make sure that when people ask for the book that they know that it is the book and not a beverage. They also stated that the publishing company is basically giving the Coca Cola company free advertising by using their slogan. Personally, I would be honored if someone though that what I said was so amazing that they wanted to use it to advertise a book.
The controversy between these two companies is really unnecessary. Coca Cola is clearly just being a baby about the whole thing and the publisher can see that. I thought that the letter from the publisher was quite hilarious. They were being sassy while remaining professional about the whole thing. Due to the amendment that allows freedom of speech, I think that the publishers should have every right to use the slogan "it's the real thing." It's not as if they are trying to somehow degrade Coca Cola by using it. Even in the last sentences of the reply letter, the publishers make it clear that they were not using the Coca Cola slogan, but they were using a phrase from a review of the book.