Teomik, headed by Emanuel, was considered to be more of the ‘sell the razors’ type of company. Whereas the Siiquent, headed by Isolde, was more of the ‘sell the machines’ type of company. Both of their models did not rely on profiting from services, but the main difference between them was the products that they were selling to the customers. They also both boasted a fluid model of revenue where they adapt to what the market and customers needed rather than following a strict revenue model.
The pros of imposing a strict revenue model means that the company would be able to plan better in terms of focusing on the right customers, deploying the right marketing campaigns, and assessing the right competitor landscapes. The cons however, is that it makes the company’s ability to sell rigid, and the market is not a rigid and predictable entity, at least no in the case for Teonik and Siiquent. Thus, a rigid model would not give the company flexibility when selling to businesses or enterprises.
As a PM in between Peter and the two heads of Siiquent and Teonik, I would apply a quarterly or a semesterly rigid financial model for both revenue streams; ‘machines’ and ‘stuff for machines’. From this periodic review, we can see where and how the market evolves, and see which model is doing the best financially. This way, we can appease the company’s need to be rigid for planning’s sake, and we can also appease the fluidity of the market, but on a quarterly/semesterly basis.
So the answer is yes – a business can have two business models
