Target Markets
Siiquent: DNA-sequencing start-up
Siiquent targets hospitals and diagnosing labs. They provide everything needed for gene-based diagnostics specifically biological and chemical compounds, test kits, and other consumables. This area of the market is pretty saturated so their business model was just to compete on price and try to sell a lot of stuff, but for less. They used the term “sustainable profit” to describe why they picked to sell this stuff.
Teomik: Research equipment provider
Teomik targets research labs and universities, providing them with the machines they need. They are the ones that sell machines that can use the Siiquent “stuff”. Since the devices are patent-protected, Teomik is able to earn fat margins. Their business model focuses on larger one time purchases, so then “it’s less relevant whether customers buy the stuff from [them] or [their] low price competitor”
Both companies and founders, though, were constantly seeking input from customers and adjusting its offerings to their wishes.
Imposing Single Revenue Model
Since both companies are two different pieces to a puzzle (one is the razor, one is the blades), it seems wrong to impose a single revenue model. You can’t really sell machines for cheap, or stuff for expensive, and expect to make money or have customers. Both companies are set up the way they are for a reason.
Additionally if we impose a single revenue model then the two companies might be unhappy with the merger deal and produce worse, lower quality service and products. It even says “Everyone knew that one of them would eventually become the sole chief and the other would depart”. If one is picked over the other it might seem like there are favorites.
However, as Scherr Pharmaceuticals grows, it will undeniably start to require structure to succeed. We can’t just let each subsector run how its head wants. Especially in the case of Siiquent, the head has a pretty strong personality, even making snarky comments like how the business model is just to “make money, lots of it”. Sometimes we need some overarching rulebook to ensure we can measure success, address concerns, and iterate mechanically, but still maintain the different models. Flexibility can be just another word for lazy management.
Hypothetical merger
In a hypothetical merger, it would be most important to consider the non-negotiables on each side. I think a conversation with both companies independently first would help to build expectations. This way the PM will know how to vouch for both sides’ needs, and evaluate different options. Then, during a conversation I think it’s important to mediate in a way that allows both company leads to speak. The article makes it pretty clear that Isolade has a stronger personality. Ultimately, it doesn’t seem like the two companies’ business goals are much different. In fact they both clearly prioritize service and customer input a lot. They just need some way to enforce and track the “nimble, flexible, and ingenious” work that they do.
I think this discussion could be iterative, and I think the ultimate priority should be for operational feasibility, customer satisfaction, and sales. We might not know what works best, so openness to change is a must.
