Target Markets and Revenue Models
Isolde (Siiquent) primarily targeted hospitals and large diagnostic labs. Her revenue model was centered on consumables where equipment could be sold at low cost but profitability came from recurring sale of compounds. This model aligned well with highly regulated healthcare institutions because Siiquent not only supplied materials at competitive prices but also offered regulatory guidance and strong maintenance support. Siiquent also responded to customer complaints and introduced the pay-per-test innovation.
Emanuel (Teomik), by contrast, focused on research labs and universities. His division’s revenue came from selling high-margin, patent-protected machines. This aligned with the priorities of research institutions and PhD students. Teomik’s model, therefore, thrived on expensive, innovative devices while offering flexibility in compounds.
Allowing both divisions to maintain their distinct revenue models allows flexibility and responsiveness to customer needs/wants. As Isolde argued, Siiquent’s willingness to adapt, like its pay-per-test innovation, built customer loyalty. Flexibility would encourage customer engagement and adaptability to competitor actions, which is important to Emanuel and Isodel.
However, running dual models can create internal competition, as seen when Teomik’s sales force undercut Siiquent’s prices for certain labs. It can also lead to “random reactivity” rather than coherent strategy, as Peter noted. Imposing the structure of a single revenue model, by contrast, could foster collaboration, streamline operations, and avoid conflicts later. While this would create unity across the divisions, it could also hinder innovation and adaptability.
Scaffolding a Fair Merger Discussion
As a PM tasked with mediating the merger, my goal would not be to dictate the outcome but to create a structured process where both parties feel heard and aligned on shared goals. To ensure a fair merging process I would begin with structured speaking time to ensure that each party can articulate their priorities without interruption. This would address potential power imbalances and prevent one narrative from dominating the other. Then I would map out where their perspectives align and where they diverge to be able to move the conversation from a competition over which model wins to a discussion of overlapping values and challenges. Finally I would summarize insights into a set of criteria (e.g. adaptability, profits, customer retention, etc.) that both leaders could use to evaluate any proposed revenue models moving forward.
