MINI
#Okay.
First, just on the seasonal side, what we saw at the end of the quarter Q3 was very similar to what we delivered last year.
It was up a little, actually, but as <UNK> highlighted, our expectations on the orders that we have, we expect to exceed last year's levels.
So the bulk of, I would say the revenue, gets recorded in Q4.
You deliver almost, I guess you'd say about half, of what you expect to deliver for the season as of September 30, but it's back-weighted, it's really kind of late September activity so you're not getting much credit for that revenue.
You really get the credit in Q4, as well as the balance of what you deliver in Q4.
Yes, on the mining, we did talk about diversified was up sequentially.
So, the mining, obviously, was an issue last quarter.
It's an issue this quarter.
That doesn't actually improved even with that.
I would just say if you look at the year over year, the business being down, it was really driven by, primarily, I'd say two-thirds of it, would be our mining activity.
We service a mine in southern Arizona and one in Utah.
With commodity prices, copper, we've had a lot less activity there.
So that really was two-thirds of the gap.
The other third was just when you get lumpy infrastructure projects.
The good news is even with the headwind that we have in the mining last quarter and this quarter, we've added resources, doing the right thing and actually growing that business, excluding that business, if that makes sense.
So, we only saw a very small amount of the delayed turnarounds in Q2 appearing in Q3.
The bulk of that is still ahead of us and we expect to get it.
I can't say when.
I can't ---+ if it's this quarter or the next couple of quarters, actually.
So we did good on our own, so to say, without these turnarounds in Q3.
I would say turnarounds did pick up a bit.
Like, as <UNK> said, it's below historical averages, but it added probably $200,000 to $300,000 incremental on a sequential basis.
We do expect more turnaround activity in the next couple quarters.
Good afternoon, <UNK>.
I don't know if we have that number.
I mean, obviously, sequentially we were up, this is on the downstream side, we were up about $600,000 sequentially.
A part would be these new accounts and a part would be some more turnaround activity.
I think there's some technology training, maybe, that is needed in some places at some times maybe.
I think it's a lot more that we had too broad of a span of our sales leaders covering these reps, so it goes more into coaching and day-to-day hand-holding in the beginning, so-to-speak, to get them up to speed or where they need to be.
We are adding sales leaders to make the span smaller.
We don't have an official target for our national accounts.
It's, I think, just over 20% of our revenues at the moment.
We believe that it can get larger share of that.
It's grown faster than the rest of the Company this year.
Like I said, we've added a lot of new accounts there and we, like I said, we expect to continue to do so.
But there's no official target.
It's both, actually.
But many times, of course, we get a national agreement signed and then we have to go out and touch each individual location and make sure that they know about the national agreement and how they should place their orders and so on.
So it can be somewhat involved, but I think we have very good processes in place there now to do just that.
No, we wouldn't say it's an end segment or a geography, no.
It would just be kind of the blended average of the portfolio of reps, and it really goes back to that middle layer I was talking about, not the tenured reps or the newbie, what I call, newbies, that are executing.
It's that middle layer that were newer and churned and we didn't get the productivity out of.
It wasn't as a result of a weak end-segment or a weak geography.
To take the last question first, no, it has nothing to do with the ERP implementation at all.
And then on the cost side, we did highlight this as far back as Q1, we'd have a higher run rate of ERP costs associated with SAP.
So, call it a higher $1 million in Q2 as well as a higher $1 million in Q3.
Not sequentially higher, but we're just running at a higher level than the prior year.
So that wasn't a surprise that we invested in a platform that we could all operate on, and be more efficient and drive faster growth, so we made the decision to spend more and then offset it with productivity gains, both at our service center here as well as in the field.
So this $1 million year over year was expected.
I think that was well said.
That was very well summarized.
Thank you.
Thanks, <UNK>.
All right.
I just want to say thank you, everyone, for listening in and participating in our call and we look forward to sharing our Q4 results with you early next year.
