I didn’t realize this never posted weeks ago! But I swear I did it on time!
DNA sequencing and research equipment were their industries. To be honest, and maybe I just have a low reading comprehension, I did not see a true difference between the two companies’ models. I think they both targeted the areas that were obvious to making a profit— targeting both the devices they sell and the supplies those devices need to operate. Imposing a single static revenue model makes it hard to operate in a changing market especially when it comes to young companies and those in new, emerging markets. When the territory/landscape is rather unexplored, it’s hard to see what exactly the primary market is, what they’re willing to pay, and all the supplementals that may be involved. After working in consulting last summer, and gaining a small bit of knowledge about mergers and acquisitions, I would scaffold the discussion by first learning about their organizational structure and essential contracts. Much like how the article mentioned Isolde’s company worked within a lot of legal bounds, it’s important that IP is handled properly during a merger. It is even more important to know the boundaries of some contacts, like non-compete clauses etc. After that I would focus more on the organizational structure: what departments are redundant and could be merged, which are now obsolete? Since this is something that could be seen as unfair to one company versus the other, I think structuring the conversation first around the intent of the merger and its benefits and then around the departments in question and how they fit into that ultimate goal.
