throbber
1/13/24, 5:12 PM
`
`WeatherTech Case Study| treeline-strategies
`
`[ioe|
`
`WeatherTech
`
`
`
`Background
`
`You can adopta challenger brand strategy in any category. We created one in the sleepy car mat
`category.
`
`Car matsaretypically purchased from a dealer as an OEM accessory when you buya car or from an
`aftermarket supplier. The aftermarket category has traditionally offered a variety of generic,
`inexpensive optionsto protect the second largest investment most people make.
`
`WeatherTech, and its founder and CEO, David MacNeil saw an opportunity to redefine the category
`using an inherently “challenger brand” strategy. They designed and built custom fitted floor liners,
`designedto protect car floors from dirt, mud,spills and other elements that can harm car interiors.
`Liners provide more complete protection for a car's floors, and liners custom fit for individual makes
`and models of cars provided dramatically better protection than any other option in the market.
`
`Having built a successful brand with national distribution, a robust e-commercecapability and a
`respectable double-digit growth rate, the company wantedto test a more aggressive approach.
`
`DaveSollitt, as Director of Strategic Planning at Pinnacle Advertising, designed the marketing, creative
`and media strategies, as well as theinitial creative direction for the WeatherTech campaigntest
`launch, which eventually became a national television campaign, and one of the most successful
`advertising campaignsin the advertising industry.
`
`Situation
`
`WeatherTech asked DaveSollitt and the team at Pinnacle Advertising in suburban Chicago to test a
`reach-based advertising program, featuring television. The company had achieved a reasonable
`customer base and sustained growthutilizing ‘remnant space’ in magazines targeted to car aficionados
`and sportsmen. Magazinesfacilitated the direct-to-consumer distribution model WeatherTech had
`built to provide higher margins from sales of their unique product.
`
`Theclientinitially suggested a campaign based on a “Made in America” message, since the product is
`manufacturedentirely in the US. Company owner David MacNeil was proud of his “Made in America”
`ethic and thoughtit captured both his corporate ethic and took advantageof the patriotic national
`mood.
`
`Following some initial exploratory research, the agency tested multiple strategic approaches among a
`variety of car buyers and recommended a message based on a problem-solution strategy, which
`demonstrated the greatest consumer responseinstead. When consumersbuy a newcar, they obsess
`about every ‘unfortunate event;' every spill, every muddy shoe, every snow covered boot. That
`obsession would stimulate the growth of the "new"floor liner category.
`
`Theclient also asked us to consider a national launch instead of a local marketrollout, based on the
`very promising research results, but we strongly recommendedagainstit. Our concern wasthat a
`national or even regional launch that reflected the initial appeal demonstratedin the research might
`strain the client’s manufacturing capacity and disruptits ability to fulfill orders. You only get one
`chance to makea first impression.
`
`TheStrategic Challenge
`
`https://www.treeline-strategies.com/weathertech
`
`Yita, Jinrong EX1127
`Yita Jinrong EX1127
`Yita & Jinrong v. MacNeil
`Yita & Jinrong v. MacNeil
`IPR2023-00173
`IPR2023-00173 1/2
`
`

`

`1/13/24, 5:12 PM
`
`WeatherTech Case Study| treeline-strategies
`
`
`
`Wedevelopedtheinitial test based on a hybrid launchstrategy:
`e Utilize a hybrid branding/direct responsecreative execution, depicting events that can introduce
`significant dirt and grime into a consumer's car;
`e Use of Direct response/remnantbroadcast media to enhanceefficiency of media delivery;
`e Fill-in spot media to ensure a 4-week “reach”of at least 80+% of the target market and a 4-week
`“frequency”ofat least 3.
`
`Weselected4initial test markets based on a multi-variant selection criteria evaluating:
`e Brand/category penetration/development;
`¢ Media cost/efficiency ratios providing projectable results in other markets;
`¢ Market economic developmentcriteria and car sales performance;
`e WeatherTech brand velocity over time.
`
`Test Results
`
`Test market volume increased over 250% after the initial 4 weeks of advertising. Growth acceleration
`continued throughthefirst 3 monthsof the test, topping at 350-400% growthyear overyear. This
`growth camein the highest margin “direct to consumer” segment which eliminates wholesale and
`retail distribution expenses.
`
`The test market data also demonstrated several market response measuresthat could beutilized in
`subsequent market expansion to establish budgets and market potential. We also demonstrated that
`a national launch would have beendifficult to manage, as anticipated.
`
`Weexpandedthe test into additional markets after 4 months in market, and continued the phased
`launch into select markets based on a custom multi-variant marketselection criteria of brand/category
`development, brand velocity, media environment(size, cost/efficiency of local spot media) and new car
`sales. In every case, immediate sales gains paid for the media expenditures in each market on a real-
`time basis. No net ‘investment’ for media was required. This was a very unique level of successin
`advertising.
`
`CampaignResults
`
`During theinitial 4 years of the campaignroll-out, the WeatherTech strategy and creative grew the
`WeatherTech brand 5-fold, in terms of volume and revenue. The brand now advertises on network and
`national cable television, including the Super Bowl.
`It is now a strong national brand and a household
`nama Tha ramnanvy ramaine an innavativia and hidahh: nrafitahla nriviata camnan and ctill
`
`https://www.treeline-strategies.com/weathertech
`
`2/2
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket