Isolde and Emanuel diverge on the types of product they supply, but overlap on the technical support and offerings of free services for their customers to provide top line genetic products and a thoughtful feedback loop. Siiquent sells gene based diagnostic tech to labs and hospitals and mainly make their revenue off of selling the utilities used by the overall machines. The test instruments began as their primary product but the consumable add ons is how they create revenue by allowing their products to become revenue generators for the hospitals. On the other hand, Teomik sells machines and instruments for research studies primarily targeting a market that has spendy researchers looking to gain prestige and that values customization. Their revenue comes from selling the machines to customers that are in high need of a high tech machine for their needs. By focusing on the additional revenue generators, Siiquent can sell add-on units to many hospitals to make profits whereas Teomik sells high value customized machines to high paying customers.
In the case that the company adopts a single revenue model, the opportunity becomes alignment for the internal organization, a unified brand for customers to follow, a product structure that has direct output to revenue generation, and clearly defined market strategy and competitor monitoring. The downsides of this model are the lack of customization that the businesses currently rely on and respond to, as well as one of the businesses failing due to adopting a revenue model that does not fit their product. Conversely, letting the companies function almost separately under one leadership position can lead to misalignment for the sales brand and the internal structure, as well as their continued overlap into the same market without a targeted way to combine the product offerings. This model could outweigh its downsides because it allows both companies to continue with models that seem to be providing sufficient revenue and continue their differentiators of flexible and customizable offers to customers.
To facilitate a conversation such as this one, I would first aim to find agreements on the “low hanging fruit”, meaning prompting both leaders to think of the easiest part of their overlapping businesses that can be merged into one by keeping the same values and structures. For example, starting off the discussion for how the customer support will be maintained in the merger could be a successful way to start a discussion of compromise and help them understand that their goals do align with one another. Additionally, I would offer them each an opportunity to present an aspect of their model that is essential to the product’s success and is realistic to maintain in the merger. This allows the conversation to revolve around the most essential business aspects to ensure that as compromises are made, we maintain differentiators core to the team’s understanding of success. Ultimately, understanding that this merger will take time and that the end goal does not need to be complete unity but instead a product offering that aligns its internal development to its external market, will help both leaders understand how the discussion can be most productive.
