When “Customer-Driven” Becomes “Strategy-Less”
I watched this destroy alignment at a startup I’m currently working in. When we pivoted from SaaS to usage-based pricing after merchant feedback, our investor deck became obsolete overnight. The flexibility won us pilot clients—but created internal chaos. My CTO and I spent weeks realigning on what success even meant.
Peter’s frustration feels visceral: How do you balance strategic clarity with market responsiveness when “listening to customers” becomes strategic whiplash?
Two Models, One Problem
Isolde’s Siiquent targets hospitals bound by regulatory frameworks—her razor-blade model (cheap instruments, profitable consumables) fits perfectly. Emanuel’s Teomik serves research institutions willing to pay instrument premiums but demanding cheap consumables.
The problem? Boundaries dissolved. Diagnostic labs started acting like research institutions. Teomik’s salespeople undercut Siiquent internally.
But here’s what Peter doesn’t see: Isolde and Emanuel aren’t defending flexibility—they’re defending themselves. Their “united front” isn’t conviction; it’s self-preservation (Bertini & Tavassoli, 2015). Neither wants their model killed; the real crisis isn’t two revenue models—it’s that strategy has been outsourced to whoever complains loudest.
Scaffolding the Conversation
As the PM mediating this, I’d anchor the process in building psychological safety—putting the “How to Speak Up” framework into motion.
Session 1 opens by making clear you’re not out to get anyone—this reduces the status threat the article identifies (Smith et al., 2019). Run joint exercises: customer journey mapping reveals where needs diverge; profit archaeology identifies which streams drive sustainable margins (our startup discovered flat-fee venues had 3x better LTV, reversing assumptions). Most critically, make them swap positions—Isolde argues for machine-focused models; Emanuel defends consumables. This surfaces hidden assumptions.
Session 2 shifts from models to boundaries. Establish red lines (no moral hazards or unpredictable economics), green zones (customer-specific pricing within guardrails), and decision triggers. Then create if-then plans as the article recommends: concrete scenarios where diagnostic labs request research-level pricing trigger margin assessments before offering tiered options, with if-then planners being 300% more likely to reach their goals (Smith et al., 2019).
Session 3 prototypes rather than decides. Design 2-3 hybrids and stress-test through finance, sales, customers. We landed on default models with approved customization parameters—merchants got usage-based but could request flat fees at volume thresholds.
The principle: intentional flexibility beats both rigid standardization and chaotic adaptation.
The Real Question
Peter’s asking the wrong question. Not “Our revenue model?” but “What framework ensures strategic adaptation versus reactive drift?” (Bertini & Tavassoli, 2015).
The answer requires what Isolde and Emanuel resist: speaking up when your strength has become your weakness. Admitting flexibility has crossed into liability takes courage.
My role isn’t solving the revenue debate. It’s creating conditions where they can answer: “When does ‘customer-driven’ cross into ‘strategy-less’?”
Here’s what keeps me up: Even with perfect facilitation, this only works if they actually want the answer. Their united front suggests they’ve decided it’s never. Until Peter addresses that fear—that one becomes expendable—no frameworks matter.
The conversation worth having isn’t about revenue models. It’s about whether they’re ready to stop hiding behind customers and start making strategic choices.
