Isolde and Emanuel serve different audiences. Isolde sells to hospitals and diagnostic labs, and makes most of her profit from test supplies. Emanuel sells to research labs and universities, and earns profit from expensive instruments. Each model fits its market: one depends on ongoing supplies, the other depends on high-value machines.
A single revenue model gives structure and consistency. It makes reporting and planning easier and helps avoid confusion in sales. But it also creates risk. A fixed model can reduce flexibility and make it harder to respond to customer needs or competitive changes. Keeping a flexible approach allows creativity, but it can also create internal conflict, unclear pricing, and mixed messages for customers.
If I had to help both divisions merge, I would focus first on a fair and calm discussion. I would start by agreeing on shared goals: customer clarity, strong service, and financial stability. Next, both leaders would describe the strengths and challenges of their current models without trying to “win.” The goal is understanding, not arguing. After that, we would look at where both models overlap and where they differ. We would decide where consistency is important and where flexibility is still useful. Instead of forcing an answer quickly, I would create a shared set of criteria to guide decisions, such as customer experience, financial predictability, and ease for the sales team.
The purpose of this process is not to defend the past, but to design a combined model that serves customers well, keeps costs manageable, and allows both teams to feel heard and respected.
