Isolde targets the market for gene-based diagnosis, having Siiquent sell consumables instead of test instruments. Siiquent provides consumables such as biological and chemical compounds and test kits, and offers them at a price less than the fixed reimbursements labs and hospitals received. This aligns with their revenue model of selling shavers and making money on the blades. Their free customer service also adds to the revenue model, allowing them to generate more business.
Emanuel targets the market on genomic devices with Teomik. They are able to focus their revenue model on these high-priced machines because institutions such as Max Planck Institutes didn’t balk at the high instrument prices. In other words, Teomik has a niche customer segment that is willing to pay a high price for machinery.
The pro of imposing a single revenue model is that it allows the two sub organizations to be aligned with upper leadership. It provides a more streamlined process for creating goals and targets to hit. On the other hand, it can limit the potential of either company.
By letting the company continue in its flexible way, we are allowing it to be able to continue a tried and true method of generating revenue. The company knows what works best for itself, and merging two companies’ revenue models together can be tough because each company is targeting a slightly different field. However, the peril of this is that it can struggle to align on goals towards the end and struggle to work together cohesively.
A discussion to ensure a fair merging process involves listening to both sides and having a discussion on any changes that need to be made to the model that ensures both parties are heard. Perhaps if it were one revenue model, we can tweak it to make sure that both sides continue to be successful. Or if it were two separate, flexible models, we can find a way to have the companies align with each other.
