"It's the Real Thing"

Coca-Cola Rhetorical Analysis

Although trademarks are extremely prevalent in modern culture, determining who has the rights to a particular slogan can often be challenging. The given selection of letters between Mr. Herbert of the Coca-Cola Company and Mr. Seaver of Grove Press highlight this ambiguity. Both companies have used the slogan, “It’s the Real Thing” in advertising, and a conflict has ensued to determine the rights to the slogan. While both representatives use various rhetorical strategies to lay claim to the right to use the slogan, Mr. Seaver of Grove Press makes a more convincing argument by effective rebuttal of Mr. Herbert’s arguments and superior use of rhetorical devices.

            In a letter to Mr. Seaver of Grove Press, Mr. Herbert appeals to the prior use of “It’s the Real Thing” by Coca-Cola to claim that this slogan should be reserved for use by Coca-Cola. Using facts to convey his argument, Mr. Herbert establishes Coca-Cola’s long-standing right to this slogan. He also begs the question, and assumes that Mr. Seaver will comply with his request to stop using this slogan. However, Mr. Seaver does not agree to stop use of “It’s the Real Thing” in Grove Press’ advertising. Mr. Seaver’s return letter downplays Coca-Cola’s appeal to tradition by discussing Grove Press’ own appeal to tradition. Mr. Seaver claims that Grove Press has had their own slogans and trademarks imitated in the past in ways more damaging to marketing. Grove Press’ bestseller Games People Play was threatened by imitations like Games Children Play and Games Psychiatrists Play, etc. Offering this alternative view on trademark infringements downplays the gravity of Mr. Herbert’s earlier appeal and garners more sympathy for Mr. Seaver’s cause the Mr. Herbert’s. This appeal to tradition is also a use of logos, because Mr. Seaver shows that the current trademark dispute is less serious that previous issues. He argues that earlier copyright infringements went unchecked, so this so-called infringement can also be allowed.

            Mr. Seaver is also able to reduce Mr. Herbert’s argument to the absurd and use wit and humor to provide a more persuasive argument. Mr. Herbert wrote in his letter that “simultaneous use of ‘the real thing’” would lead to advertising competition, have a negative effect on the economic viability of both companies, and “dilute the distinctiveness” and “diminish the effectiveness” of the slogan due to confusion between the different products making use of the slogan. Contrary to this argument, Mr. Seaver wittingly suggests that confusion between the products might actually help the Coca-Cola Company’s business, as people might buy Coke rather than Grove Press’ book. This comical suggestion illustrates the absurdity of confusing a book with a soft drink. He reduces Mr. Herbert’s argument to the absurd by following a line of logic to an unreasonable conclusion. This humorous response undermines Mr. Herbert’s staid argument and is a very persuasive tool that Mr. Seaver uses.

            By challenging Mr. Herbert’s appeal to tradition with his own appeal, and reducing Mr. Herbert’s argument to the absurd in a witty manner, Mr. Seaver is able to offer a persuasive case in support of Grove Press’ right to utilize “It’s the Real Thing” in their advertising. Despite the fact that Mr. Herbert likely has a more logical stance on the issue, Mr. Seaver uses wit and quick thinking to respond to Mr. Herbert’s argument and to make an overall more persuasive argument.

Rhetorical analysis is one of my strengths in AP Lang, and this paper is no exception. As an excellent paper, I demonstrate understanding of how individual rhetorical devices contribute to the overall argument of the authors, and I am able to analyze the use of those devices in context to the argument. I am able to see how the authors use both similar and dissimilar rhetorical devices, and I compare the effectiveness of those devices in their arguments. In addition to analysis, this paper demonstrates good writing with strong diction and elevated sentence structure. A strong introduction places the debate in context and outlines the course of the essay, and a good conclusion then summarizes the main points of the essay and concisely finishes the argument.

Throughout the year, my ability to recognize rhetorical devices in writing has grown until I now feel comfortable taking a piece of writing and analyzing how minute changes in diction, structure, or emphasis can influence an author’s argument. These skills are crucial for rhetorical analysis, skills that I have learned since entering this class. My ability to convey my understanding of those devices has also developed, so that I can now show a reader that my argument is valid based on my understanding of the author’(s) text. My knowledge of rhetorical devices and their effects has grown as I have read and analyzed texts throughout the year, practiced writing responses to those texts, and taken writing assessments. This knowledge will be invaluable as I progress in my writing abilities in the future and prepare for college and a career.