Ira C. Herbert's Arguments To Grove Press

Ira C. Herbert, an executive for the Coca-Cola company, formally writes to Grove Press, a small publishing company, addressing the issue that both companies are using a similar slogan to promote different products. The Coca-Cola company expresses extreme discontent with this occurrence and demands a repeal on the usage of the expression. Through an informal tone, Herbert expresses the problems that Grove Press has potentially caused Coca-Cola. In response, Richard Seaver, the vice president of Grove Press, clarifies all the misunderstandings in a stylish and sarcastic manner that enhances his response to Coca-Cola. He mocked the situation and the outlandish claims done by Herbert. Whereas Herbert’s letter was a more demanding professional letter, Seaver’s

response is more persuasive due to the criticism and the denigration of the Coca-Cola executive.
To begin, it is important to recognize the way the Coca-Cola executive, Ira C. Herbert, demonstrated his company at the beginning of the letter. He begins by explaining the situation and the problem of the misunderstood use of similar phrases to promote their products which he claims it may have done damage financially to the company. Herbert implies that Coca-Cola has a feeling of ownership on the phrase “It’s the Real Thing” as they have used it “long prior to the publication of the book” ( para 2). Following this explanation, Herbert demands the repeal of such a phrase from any connection to Grove Press. These claims shows the confidence of the writer and assumes respect from any company that is not part of the same industry. Coca-Cola is a strong company and is recognizable; therefore, Herbert felt justified to infer their cooperation.
As a response to Herbert, Executive Vice President of Grove Press, Richard Seaver wrote a well-structured letter that justifies their views on the use of the phrase. He begins his letter with a strong use of sarcasm, a literary device which embraces the connotation of the paper to be humorous. Seaver jokingly stated, “... we have instructed our salesmen to notify bookstores that whenever a customer ...asks for a copy… [they are to] make sure that what the customer wants is the book…” ( para. 2). This clarification means that he has ensured that customers do not confuse the book for a Coke, stating this humourous say as a form to establish their righteousness to their actions. He believes nothing wrong was committed; therefore, humor emerged from the situation to show it. Seaver sarcastically explains how that “should protect [their] interest” ( para. 2). He clarifies that he has gone through the correct process to not affect them financially, which shows how Seaver points out the weakness of Coca-Cola of being threatened by the use of a similar phrase. All together, this steps on the confidence of Coca-Cola of them considering themselves a well-respected company which expects cooperation from any company deemed inferior to them. Seaver shuts down their claims and rises above their unreasonable claims through humor.
Following the request in the first section of his letter, Herbert explains the business side of this predicament. For example, Herbert’s describes the problem by stating, “ There will always be likelihood of confusion… would dilute the distinctiveness of the trade slogan… diminish the effectiveness and value as an advertising and merchandising tool”(para 2). When marketing, it is not in your best interest to duplicate another company’s slogan. It is unprofessional and will cause the appealing effect to fade away rendering the slogan bothersome. The significance of this letter is that both Coca-Cola and Grove Press, are companies that need to accumulate wealth; therefore, the slogan replication has to be avoided, but Herbert demands, that there will no longer be an issue between the two, enforcing his power as a representative of the bigger company.
Seaver acknowledges Herbert’s request, although he criticizes him for writing the letter.

Seaver mocks Herbert’s request using lines such as, “ We would certainly not want to dilute… nor diminish… but it did occur to us that since the slogan is so closely identified to your product…” (para 2). In other words, Seaver blatantly shows the irony in the letter by showing that the letter would not be necessary unless Coca-Cola is not selling as well as it usually does for it to be confused with a book. This criticism shows that Coca-Cola is threatened by competition and losing its place as one of the top selling companies. Adding insult to injury, this is done when Seaver states sarcastically, “We would be happy to give Coke the residual benefit of our advertising” (para 2). The essence of Seaver’s argument is that Grove Press, is going to sell its products, and if Coca-Cola wants a sum of the money, then Seaver’s Company will gladly oblige. Seaver is suggesting that Coca-Cola is consumed with greed and is power hungry to the extent of needing to remove all sorts of competition regardless of product. To sum up, Seaver demonstrates the destructive flaws within the Coca-Cola company that will turn the public against

them.
Nevertheless, Herbert justifies their right to the use of the phrase and relating it to their history and clearly emphasizes that the Coca-Cola Company pertains the only right to display and advertise the hook specifically for 1970. Herbert introduces this idea that the company has used the slogan long before Grove Press in their publication as he states, “‘It’s the real thing’ … [used] in advertising for Coca-Cola over twenty-seven years ago to refer to our product…” (para 3). According to Herbert, he is evidently backing up his statement that they have rights over the slogan as Coca-Cola has used it in the past and sequentially adds on that Grove Press not use the slogan as an advertisement. Advocating condescension and being more technical, Herbert informs Seaver with the expectation that Grove Press will denounce the slogan of “It's the Real Thing” in its advertising campaign and follow the Coca-Cola Company’s informative letter of arising in a resolution.
Accordingly, Seaver claims that this letter that was sent by Herbert is not the first time outside parties have announced the right to a saying or even more critically on a specific slogan, however; he states it does not reflect on the purpose or the pivotal point of its effectiveness that it is trying to achieve. Seaver recalls one time where they published Games People Play and received mimics from all over the place relating to its title and explains, “ … that this posed a far more direct and deadly threat to both the author and ourselves than our use of “it’s the real thing” (para 3). Spurring from this, we find that Seaver has a cause of severe anguish towards Herbert since he knows his work and to even be questioned takes upon careful examination of the subject given. Therefore, in Herbert’s attempt in trying to sway Grove Press in releasing their mutual effort, Seaver has the upper hand in the act of persuasion due to his erudite and exasperated tone.
Herbert concludes his idea of assuming cooperation while maintaining optimism and also exemplifies that he sees it necessary that “it’s the real thing” be excluded in all its advertisements. Herbert assumes that there will be no further complications after the publication of this letter when he says, “Please excuse my writing so fully, but I wanted to explain why we feel it's necessary to ask you and your associates to use another line…” (para 4). His optimistic tone is what ultimately led to Seaver’s letter being the more effective leader. Herbert sets himself up for failure when writing this letter due to his assumption that his executive title will scare Seaver. He assumes cooperation in order to get the slogan changed and the optimism is needed to end the letter in a positive and simple manner to ensure there will not be any further complications between either side.
The author concludes with apologizing and stating that nobody stopped for a moment to denounce whether “it’s the real thing” came from somewhere and that it was explicitly used in a book review in quotations by Peter S. Prescott concerning his opinion. Seaver claims that Coca-Cola does not own the phrase “It’s the real thing” and emphasizes that Grove Press will “...defend to the death your right to use ‘It’s the real thing’...” (para 4). Prior to, Seaver illustrates how his company is protected under the first amendment. The first amendment in our Bill of Rights is the freedom of speech and because of the fact that it is the first, it should be the most recognizable. He uses this in order to prove to Herbert that Coca-Cola cannot take legal action because of the fact that there is no copyright on the phrase, or really based on the common knowledge was a review by Prescott. Seaver then provides the full quote in which the advertising company used the phrase “It’s the real thing.” Seaver states, “We were Merely quoting in our ads Peter S. Prescott’s review of diary of a Harlem Schoolteacher…” (para 4). Seaver’s use of providing the full quote is extremely effective in this letter. Providing the full quote makes the Coca-Cola executives look like fools due to their absurd claims. Ultimately, this is why Seaver’s letter is more effective than Herbert’s.