Analysis Of Coca Cola Vs Grover Press

irony and cynicism have often assumed a dual role throughout literature, both degrading an opponent when used rhetorically and supporting one's own argument. By elevating the petty and insignificant points of the oppositions's argument to a universally consequent status, an author can lead his audience to an unconscious identification with his cause by convincing them of the ridiculous and often unnecessary nature of the other's complaint. Through insiduous mockery and blatant insincerity, a previously sound and cordial argument can appear inconsequential or fallacious.

Such is the case concerning the correspondance between the Coca-Cola company and Grover Press; although one may initially assume Coca-Cola's conclusions and be in accordance with the legitimacy of their complaint—in this case, the usurpation of an advertising slogan—all sympathies are dispelled by the cynicism and sarcasm of the Grove rebuttal. Coca-Cola speaks amiably and respectfully, never lowering to the level of mockery or debasement, and outlines two main arguments concerning the dual use of the slogan in question, each of which is
disdainfully refuted in an ironic, witty response.

The Coca-Cola company initially asserts that the simultaneous usage of their slogan will engender public confusion regarding the identification with a particular product; the corporation also states that the catch phrase's effectiveness will be diluted as a merchandising tool.
They argue logically, solely on the basis of historical precedent; their main weapon is a simple appeal to reason. Although not strictly limited to the tradional Western "modus porens" logical form, the argument follows in general traditional debate form: an assertion supported by concrete evidence (for example, the writer insinuates that his corporation should use the slogan in question simply because it has done so prior to Grove Press' usage; he supports his claim with a detailed history of that particular advertising campaign.) His case seems objective, unbiased, and entirely
rational.

All trappings of reason are annulled, however, by Grove Press' bitingly ironic rejoinder. Coca-Cola's primary argument concerning public confusion and disassociation with the motto is attacked, bearing the full brunt of the author's sarcasm. Phrases such as "I can fully understand that the public might be confused by our use of the expression, and mistake a book...for a six-pack of Coca-Cola" and "we have instructed .. all sales personnel to make sure that what the customer wants is a book and not a Coke" mocks the previously seemingly logical argument and demonstrates the frivolity of the complaint. Although illogical and vituperative, the author's "ad homineum" style of rhetoric exerts a more lasting and convincing sway on the reader. By duplicating exactly phrases from the Coca-Cola letter, the very cordiality of the style is made a target of ridicule as well, undermining the credence and effectiveness of the first letter. Grove Press' more familiar tone and ease of expression—the formal, respectful adornment of the Coca-Cola letter is scorned as well—also supports their argument in the eyes of the reader. Although obstreporous and critical, irony and sarcasm—when liberally appled—can often emotionally undermine the arguments of an opponent to such an extent as to cause the reader to favor it over simple logic.