Thursday, February 26, 2009
Week of Feb 26 - March 5
We have read the two letters between an executive of the Coca-Cola company and a representative of the Grove Press. In your blackboard discussions this week, please analyze the rhetorical strategies each writer uses to achieve his purpose and evaluate which letter offers the more persuasive case. In your evaluations, be certain to point out why you think one letter is more persuasive than the other - based on strategies the writer employs. Remember to limit your posts to 4 - 5 sentences so it is easier for others to respond to your comments. These posts are worth 10 points.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
34 comments:
I think the letter from Richard Seaver is more persuasive because in my opinion, he makes the most logical arguement. Even though his sarcasm supports his opinion that the request to stop using the slogan is not legitimate, he takes the letter written to him seriously and takes a vote with others on what to do about the situation. He then provides reasons why their use of the phrase "It's the real thing" is not infringing on Coca-Cola's use of the slogan.
I agree with Stephanie, Seaver has a very sarcastic tone throughout his letter. In lines 15-19, he writes, "those who read our ad may well tend to go out and buy a Coke rather than our book. We have discussed this problem in an executive committee meeting, and by a vote of seven to six decided that, even if this were the case, we would be happy to give Coke the residual benefit of our advertising." He makes fun of their letter by saying that Coke might benefit from this use of "the real thing".
I dont think Seaver is being persuasive. I believe he is using sarcasm to flat out tell the Coca Cola company that they have the right to use the slogan. He is not trying to persuade them. He says "Given our strong sentiments concerning the First Amendment, we will defend to the death your right to use the slogan, we would hope you do the same for us, especially when no one here in our advertising agency realized that you owned the phrase." He basically says you have the right and we have the right, so we are both keeping the slogan.
I have to agree with Will. I did pick up on the sarcasm of Seaver's letter, but I wouldn't call him persuasive. He was simply letting the Coca Cola company know that he has no intention of not using the saying if he so chooses. He is informing them that they do not own "it's the real thing."
The Coca Cola Company seemed to be the more persuasive letter to me. It was the company that was trying to get Seaver to stop using "It's the real thing." They were trying to persuade him to see things their way, but sadly for them, Seaver didn't fall for it. Seaver shot back a reply that even though it angered them, I'm sure they had to chuckle at with his well stated and professional take on sarcasm. Who knew a business letter could be so entertaining to read?
The letter written by Ira Herbert is the more persuasive of the two letters. His argument is for the protection of the company he works for and he uses solid reasons why the printing company should immediately stop the use of the slogan "it's the real thing" regardless of who said it.
This kind of reminds me of the letter Mrs. Harwood read to us last year. I don't know if any of you remember it but it was about that beaver dam problem. The reply to that was also a funny and sarcastic way to tell the company that it was going to stay they way it was. That's all Seaver does.
I particularly like when Seaver argues that it will benefit the Coke company. He uses sarcasm to the best right here. He is not serious about it helping them. It is just basically a way to be funny and I believe that was his purpose in writing this letter. He wanted to show the Coke company how ridiculous they were being.
A rhetoric device used in both letters is exemplum, which is citing an example during writing. In the letter written by Ira C. Herbert, he lists examples of how the Coca Cola Company has used the phrase "the real thing" in advertising for twenty-seven years. In the letter written by Richard Seaver, he gives an example of when imitation books using a similar title to a book called "Games People Play," which his company published, posed a threat to the author and his company.
Ira Herbert uses the complex rhetorical mode of narration, a chronological order of events, in his letter. To express his point of how long Coca Cola has been using the slogan, "it's the real thing," he lists four dates, 1942, 1954, 1969, and 1970, and the type of advertising used during those dates. He is showing that Coca Cola has had rights to the phrase for many years before Richard Seaver's printing company used it to describe its book.
I remember the beaver dam letter Will!!! You are so right! The Seaver letter is very similar to that one!
I think that a reason why it was a bit difficult to identify which of the two letters we were asked to read was the best example of a persuasive letter was that the persuasive techniques failed. When a persuasive letter is written it is usually expected to succeed in influencing a person or a group to think or act in a certain way, but when the person or group flat out doesn't fall for the persuasive techniques it is difficult to tell who was joking and who was being perfectly serious.
I was just thinking about the humor involved in the Seaver letter. Some people might view the use of such humor as unfit for a business letter and maybe even think that it takes away from the purpose of getting the point across, but I think it actually makes a bigger statement. When I think about the beaver dam letter, I realize how that humor made such an impact that I remember that darn letter from last year. Humor can actually help in some cases.
I have to agree that Seaver's essay is the more persuasive. In lines three through eleven Seaver presents an extended analogy in which he compares the use of "the real thing" to the Coca-Cola use and the novel's use. By comparing the two, Seaver is able to defend the use of "the real thing". Because in context, "the real thing" means two different concepts between a novel and a soda, the phrase does not affect the other product.
Reading Seaver's essay reminding me of a giant euphemism. However sly Seaver may be, it is still easy to identify the sarcasm in his phrases. Lines 6-11 (refering to the the clerk distinguishing whether the customer prefers a coke or a book) in particular are noteworthy. However, I think that when Seaver writes, "we have discussed this problem... we would be happy to give coke the residual benefit of our advertising" (lines 16-19)he is being most acidic. It would be most interesting to see how the conversation between Seaver and Herbert would have turned out, had it not been in the form of a formal business letter.
I believe that the persuasive techniques used in the Herbert letter where all the basic and expected techniques; it was exactly what you would expect to see when reading a business letter. However, the Seaver letter is full of unexpected elements, the most striking of which is humor. Seaver makes his point in a different way than Herbert does, and I think that this makes it more effective in the end. After all, in class, we all ended much more in agreement with Seaver than with Herbert.
I liked Beth's opinion that the Seaver letter was one big euphemism. It is apparent to me that the Herbert letter was probably very irritating to Seaver, but I appreciate the way he chose to respond. Rather than using dry rationale, he makes Herbert feel ridiculous while still maintaining the appearance of being polite and courteous. I always appreciate sarcasm, so I love the way Seaver handles the situation.
I agree with Amy that the sarcastic humor probably does make Herbert feel foolish and is therefore much more effective in proving a point. Poking fun is a sure way to make someone feel ridiculous, and the reader may tend to side with Seaver because he appears to have a better side to the conflict. However, the letter written by Herbert is unquestionably business appropriate, while the sarcasm in Seaver's letter may be taken less seriously.
Congrats Musical Cast on a fabulous show! All your hard work most definitely paid off!!!
While the first letter in this set is a legitimate plea for the rights of the catch phrase, “it’s the real thing,” the second letter is structured for entertainment. The replying letter oozed sarcasm and completely ridiculed the Coca Cola Company’s request. What makes the letter so striking is its contrast. The letter is sarcastic and hilarious, but it is also in a professional business letter format. This contrast is what makes the piece worthy of AP exam material.
Both letters establish a precise setting, or time when each was written. They not only have dates, but also explain background information such as the “mail strike” mentioned in Mr. Seaver’s letter. This helps the reader place the letter in history (which in this case is the early 1970’s), and if used correctly may help in analyzing the work.
The first letter is a persuasive, like what Stephanie said, but I don't think the first letter is sarcastic at all. It's in fact serious. The Coca-Cola representative is concerned about the company's prophet, even though it is facing a book.
The second letter is sarcastic and mocking. Seaver thinks that the Coca-Cola representative is unable to understand that a book and a drink are two different things. Seaver takes the chance to make a satirical letter to a serious person, whom it seems he has no respect for. The letters have opposite ideas which can give an insight into the writers style.
Why didn't the Coca Cola Company trademark "it's the real thing"? Then they might actually have a legitimate argument.
Kelley is right. The two letters contrast one another, making it relatively easy to pick out what makes them differ. The biggest difference lies in the motives of each letter. One is a persuasive plea, and the other is a ridiculing decline.
I agree with Alison, Coca-Cola did not trademark the saying "It's the real thing" and so Mr. Seaver should not have to leagally discontinue the use of the saying. If there was a trademark then lines 26-27 "We appreciate your cooperation and your assurance that you will discontinue the use of "it's the real thing" would be able to be inforced leagally but without a trademark there is no leagal obligation.
The Coca-Cola representative is concerned with the well being of the company but at the same time needs to think about what he is saying. If Mr. Seaver does use this slogan, like Mr. Seaver said, maybe people will buy a coke instead of the book. Mr. Herbert is typical corporate America trying to sue for the littlest things. That is a major problem with todays society, people try to sue for anything before thinking about what they are actually doing first.
Thank you Alison, and thank you for all of your help! :)
I agree with Stephanie, the letter that Seaver wrote is very sarcastic and easier for the reader to side with. By using sarcasm, he makes Mr. Herbert look rediculous because it is like they are trying to help Coca-Cola by using this slogan. The whole argument is tn a way rediculous because neither party would benefit from this argument and so it is kind of rediculous for Mr. Herbert to write to Mr. Seaver.
The rhetorical device exemplum is used as supporting detail pertaining to the stance taken in each letter. In this way, the letters are similar to the closing arguments of a lawyer. Each person makes their stance on the issue clear, but then also goes on to explain why they took that stance and finally supports their argument with adequate evidence associated with the case. This is what lawyers do; they persuade.
Seavers letter is more persuasive because it is more logical. The critic wrote a review calling the Harlem school teacher the real thing. He bases his letter on that logic. By use of comparison between coke and the novel Seaver proves that both companies can use the salogan mutually.
This is a question for Mrs. Moore. If on the AP test we were given a pair of literary works similar to this one, when analyzing should we focus on comparing, contrasting and linking the two works together for the majority of the analysis, or focus on each work alone first and then emphasize the connection between the two?
I personally don't think that using a slogan will suade one to buy the book or the Coke. If someone wants a Coke it's because they are thristy and they like Coke, not because the slogan says "It's the real thing". Likewise if someone wants to buy the book, it's probably because they want to read it; and if by chance the person buying the book recognizes the slogan as a Coke slogan and decides to buy the Coke then both companies benefit. I think that the two letters are ridiculous and frankly do not serve a purpose other than to start an arguement.
I would also like the say that today at the cast party Kelley grabbed the 2 liter of Coke and looked at me and said "It's the Real Thing". It was kinda like a comercial and really made me laugh. See, slogans are just statements to make fun of and not to be taken seriously.
Post a Comment