Which markets do Isolde and Emanuel target respectively? How do their respective business/revenue models align with their markets?
Siiquent targets hospitals and diagnostic labs. These customers operate under strict regulations and fixed insurance reimbursements. They need someone to handle compliance headaches and keep equipment running. So Siiquent sells instruments cheap and makes money on consumables, which the reading calls the classic razor-blade model. It works because customers value regulatory support and can’t afford downtime.
Emanuel’s Teomik serves research institutions and universities. These customers care about cutting-edge instruments for their studies. They have bigger budgets for equipment and can buy consumables wherever they want. So Teomik charges premium prices for machines and doesn’t worry much about consumables. The model fits because researchers need the best tools and have the funding to pay for them.
Both models made sense when the units operated separately, but they are no longer.
What are the pros and perils of “imposing the structure of a single revenue model” vs. “letting [the company] continue on its flexible way”?
Peter wants one revenue model, which is logical. A unified approach means clearer pricing, no internal competition, and easier customer conversations. You can train salespeople consistently. You can forecast revenue. You can actually plan. But Isolde and Emanuel have a point about rigidity. Markets change. Customers shift. Competitors move fast. A locked-in revenue model can become a cage. You lose the ability to experiment or respond to what customers actually want. The real peril isn’t having two models. It’s having two models with no coordination. Right now, Teomik’s salespeople undercut Siiquent by selling compounds to diagnostic labs that technically overlap both markets, which leads to customers getting confused. The units compete instead of collaborate.
Pretend that the CEO has decided the department heads must merge their divisions together. As a star PM assigned to mediate this interaction between department heads, how would you scaffold the discussion to ensure a fair merging process?
If I’m the PM mediating this discussion, I would build a framework for them to figure it out together. First you would map the actual overlap and get the actual data on shared customers. Then, I would find out what needs to be consistent across the merged unit. I would then ideate a few different models that make sense and run experiments. I would track the results for six months and use that to make the most informed decision.
