As stated in the reading, Isolde (Siiquent) targets hospitals and big diagnostic labs, while Emanuel (Teomik) targets research labs and universities. They both follow a sort of razor-blade model in that Siiquent generates revenue from consumables (so compounds, test kits, etc. instead of from its test instruments), and Teomik generates revenue from patent-protected research machines.
Flexibility in its revenue model was what allowed Siiquent’s success in its pay-per-test model and allows both companies to listen more closely to its user needs in an ever-changing market. However, not having a single revenue model might result in confusion down the line on what to prioritize when seeking to increase profit since both arms would pursue their own strategy instead of one single unified strategy. Additionally, having a clear and single revenue model would help impose a clearer market positioning as Siiquent-Teomik would be able to focus on marketing itself as one particular supplier/provider for whatever b2b product, rather than as a supplier/provider for a wide variety of things (and thus not having a clearly defined market to go after).
As a PM, I would try to scaffold the discussion by inviting both department heads to look at the data itself and make decisions based off of that. This avoids any sort of personal bias that might come up and would prevent the awkward situation that Peter is in at the end of the article; instead of leaving the convincing up to the department heads’ powers of persuasion, committing to examining the facts through numbers would help everyone know what to pursue for its revenue model. Additionally, I would also want to reassure both heads that it is not a competition in trying to decide whether (metaphorically) shavers or blades will prevail, but rather that they are joining forces to figure out the future of razors as a whole.
