A Rhetorical Analysis Of 'It's The Real Thing'

The year is 1970. Coca-Cola and its company is continuing to swim in its own profits. Grove Press Publishing is prospering as well, having recently published the book, Diary of a Harlem Schoolteacher. The marketing campaigns to these two companies, however, seem oddly similar and Coca-Cola took notice, having Ira C. Herbert draft a complaint letter to a Grove Press representative, Richard Seaver, for the use of the same slogan, “It’s the Real Thing”. In this letter, Hebert makes his best attempt to persuade Seaver and the Grove Press to stop the use of the slogan. In response, Seaver makes a letter of his own to act as a rebuttal to the arguments Herbert presented. Although both authors drafted similar letters, Seaver and the Grove Press is

much more convincing through the use of logical reasoning and different forms of satire, in order to outwit and outplay Herbert and Coca-Cola, who wrote their letter with reasonable points, and past history.
To begin the argument between the two companies, Herbert explains that having the same slogan of “It’s the Real thing” with two different companies would cause confusion for the customers and their products.

Herbert “believes that you will agree that it is undesirable” for the companies and their own different markets, respectively (8). In order to continue to reinforce his argument, Herbert uses context of the company such as how the slogan was “first used in advertising for Coca-Cola over twenty-seven years ago” (14-15). Herbert ends is letter and therefore his argument making the assumption that he had wrote enough to be able to persuade Seaver and the Grove Press to see it from Coca-Cola’s perspective and comply with Herbert’s

request.
As a rebuttal to Herbert and Coca Cola, Seaver and the Grove Press wrote their own letter, which includes their own arguments as of why it does not matter if both companies have the same slogan.

Through the use of seer wit and sarcasm, Seaver mocks and makes fun of the Coca Cola company for believing that “the public might be confused by our use of expression, and mistake a book… for a six pack of Coca-Cola” (4-6). Seaver continues to sever Herbert’s argument by making sarcastic comments such as the Grove Press will have “instructed all our salesmen to notify bookstores that whenever a customer comes in and asks for a copy...to make sure that what the customer wants is the book, rather than a Coke” (7-11). These instances of mockery give off the impression that Seaver is not and will take Herbert or the Coca-Cola company seriously as the entire situation at hand is ridiculous. By repeating lines directly from Herbert’s own letter, Seaver belittles the potency and effectiveness of Herbert’s argument, which in turn gives the upper hand to the Grove Press. Towards the end of Seaver’s letter, he makes a reference to the First Amendment, making it much more difficult for Herbert to battle against the law. In claiming that the Grove Press will “defend to the death”, while simultaneously using a sarcastic tone, Coca-Cola’s right to own the slogan, Seaver gives undertones that he and Grove Press could care less if the Coca-Cola company owned the slogan and will continue to use the

slogan regardless of what Coca-Cola says. As a nail in the coffin, Seaver ends his letter writing how the Grove press gives its “strong sentiments” as well as its “best wishes” to Coca-Cola company, which is an example of farce in action (30, 37).
When only scratching the surface, both letters seem childish as they both attack each other for their own personal gain. However, when a closer look is taken, it arguments can be identified, which only serve to defend themselves. Though the letter were similar yet distinctly different, Seaver’s uses of sarcasm, mockery, irony, and exaggeration and annulment of Herbert’s points, on multiple occasions, clearly beat Herbert’s own argument consisting of logical points, seriousness, and use of context. Of the two letters, Seaver’s undoubtedly wins in terms of being more persuasive argument by absolutely dominating and shredding Herbert’s letter.