Were you measuring the aftermarket capture internally? Was that a metric you tracked, the share of the aftermarket captured from what you sell to the OEMs?

You're asking, if I capture an OEM on my territory, do we know how much of the aftermarket is being serviced and how much Dodge is getting on a replacement basis? The general consensus I've heard is that Dodge would capture about 80% of the market share when it comes to original parts, meaning 80% of the time, people would replace parts with Dodge. However, did we track this using serial numbers or any other methods to confirm if we're actually capturing the market share for repeat MRO activities? No, we didn't measure that at all. I don't know anyone across the country who did that.

In the case of The Andersons, what specific product did you sell, and what was their situation before that?

Let me explain. The Andersons had a lot of shaft mount gearboxes. The situation was that these used V-belt sheaves, and The Andersons were involved in grain and the fertilizer industry. The chemical used for fertilizer was very abrasive and strong, which would wear out the belts. They didn't have the maintenance staff to service the belts regularly, so it was always a hassle to keep the V-belts from failing. We worked with a local independent distributor and looked at a solution that doesn't use belts at all. It's a beltless drive with a C-face connection, known as the Dodge motorized torque arm. We conducted a survey one morning, gathered all the product information, and did interchanges. We compared the pricing of our normal shaft mount with V-belts to the motorized torque arm. Although there was an upcharge for the motorized torque arm, we demonstrated downtime savings. We documented around $100,000 in savings over a year for 15 to 20 gearboxes. They ended up purchasing all those motorized torque arms over the next year.