A Rhetorical Analysis Of Coca-Cola's Letter

The use of rhetoric in today’s world is seen everyday as various groups of people attempt to persuade others in any given topic. One of the most effective rhetorical strategies, if used correctly, is that of sarcasm. Thus is the case between the Grove Press and Coca-Cola as they feud over the use of Coca-Cola’s slogan “It’s the real thing” in an advertisement for the Diary of a Harlem Schoolteacher. Through different strategies, both companies attempt to persuade the other of what they believe is the right course of action.
The letter from R. W. Seaver of the Coca Cola factory takes a polite and respectful approach to the company’s complaint about the identical use of their slogan, a legitimate complaint in terms of similarity. The letter initially contends that, “Several people have called to our attention your advertisement for Diary of a Harlem Schoolteacher.” This is said in order to give Grove Press a sense of the legitimacy to the issue, since they had not received complaints. The letter takes a relatively simple and

straightforward persuasive strategy by asserting the letter’s goal: to convince Grove Press to discontinue their use of the slogan “It’s the real thing” followed by concrete evidence. The evidence brought forward is from a historical perspective with Seaver outlining Coca Cola’s history of using the slogan. This includes Seaver’s claims that the slogan was “first used in advertising for Coca-Cola over twenty-seven years ago to refer to our product.,” and was later extended to outdoor advertisements, some of which still existed. Seaver then proclaims that the slogan would act as the company’s “main thrust” for 1970. Seaver also contends that the dual-usage of the slogan would provoke confusion as well as diminish the overall effectiveness of both marketing campaigns. Seaver’s use of history creates a logical argument for Coca-Cola’s entitlement to the slogan while simultaneously showing concern for the “prominent” Grove Press company by asserting that the potential confusion would dilute both companies’ goals. Seaver’s overall argument appeals to logic while taking an objective, courteous approach.
In contrast, Ira Herbert of Grove Press refutes all of Seaver’s points in a sarcastic manner.

Herbert attacks Seaver’s seemingly logical points in a way that makes them sound idiotic. The letter begins harmless enough, with Herbert showing sympathy for Coca-Cola’s position on the matter. He then throws a quick jab with lines such as, “I 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 coke.” With this, Herbert addresses Seaver’s point that the dual slogan use would cause confusion by making a formerly logical point seem illogical. In the third paragraph, Herbert says that Grove Press would be happy to direct more business to Coca-Cola if they misunderstood the book’s advertisement and consequently bought a coke. With this, Herbert seems to undermine the same cordiality of Coca Cola’s letter by echoing the sarcasm in the preceding

paragraphs.
Lines twenty through twenty-nine, however, take a more direct approach similar to that of the Coca-Cola letter. Herbert utilizes Grove Press’ history of using similar book titles such as Games Children Play and Games Psychiatrists Play to prove that similar titles and advertising in the same marketing niche have little effect on the other’s success, much less in two completely different niches. Not only does Herbert’s letter create a more lasting impression through its use of sarcasm and rebuttal, but it defeats Seaver’s letter in terms of direct evidence. Seaver’s use of history states a fact while not supporting his points other than Coca-Cola’s use of the phrase before Grove Press while Herbert uses history to further negate Seaver’s main point: the simultaneous use of the marketing phrase by two different companies would provoke consumer confusion.
The use of sarcasm in Seaver’s letter refuting Herbert’s points in a humorous way leaves a lasting impression on the reader. Herbert directly asks Grove Press to discontinue the use of the slogan while Seaver sprinkles his letter with small jabs such as “no one here or in our advertising department, I am sorry to say, realized that you owned the phrase,” that show Grove Press won’t back down simply because they are fighting Coca-Cola. By citing the rights brought forth in the First Amendment, Seaver leaves the impression that, if necessary, Grove Press would take the issue to court.
Thus, the satire and indirectness of Seaver's letter is much more persuasive than the demanding and condescending tone of Herbert's letter. Through its use of sarcasm to undermine all of Herbert’s seemingly logical points, Seaver’s rhetorical strategy outshines that of the common formality of Herbert’s appeal to logic.