Isolde’s unit, Siiquent, targets large hospitals and diagnostic labs, offering consumables for gene-based diagnosis. Her revenue model aligns with a “razor-blade” strategy: selling diagnostic machines at cost while making profits on consumables. Emanuel’s unit, Teomik, targets research institutions, selling high-margin, patent-protected machines. Teomik focuses more on equipment sales, while consumables play a secondary role.
Imposing a single revenue model could streamline operations, reduce customer confusion, and create a cohesive sales strategy. However, it risks stifling innovation and flexibility, especially if it doesn’t align with the nuances of both markets. On the other hand, maintaining flexibility allows for market adaptability but may lead to inefficiencies, internal competition, and customer confusion over differing sales approaches.
To mediate the interaction between Isolde and Emanuel, the process would start with defining shared company-wide goals, such as growth, customer satisfaction, and competitive positioning. Then, facilitate a neutral presentation of each business unit’s revenue model, detailing how it fits with the respective markets. Later, encourage discussions around different scenarios for the merged entity, exploring the impact of different revenue models (e.g., maintaining flexibility or consolidating). It is also important to guide both teams to think from the perspective of customer needs, asking how the merged entity can deliver better value through unified or flexible approaches. Finally, one would have to propose testing hybrid or merged strategies in smaller, controlled markets to gather data on efficiency and profitability before committing to a full merger strategy.
