Balancing Structure and Flexibility in Business Models
When I read about Isolde and Emanuel, LinguaLeap’s challenge came to mind, as they both face the same fundamental tension of how to grow without losing what already works. Isolde’s Siiquent sells to hospitals and diagnostic labs, focusing on a steady, recurring revenue through consumables, which they call a “razor-blade” model. Emanuel’s Teomik, on the other hand, sells to research institutions that care more about innovation than price, so his model relies on high-margin equipment sales and flexible pricing.
Both models make sense in their markets, but the overlap between them made the conflict inevitable and it risked them both taking over each others’ markets. I see the same situation with LinguaLeap: its university partnerships resemble Isolde’s structured, reliable revenue stream, while its corporate training pilots look more like Emanuel’s experimental, opportunity-driven approach. Both models are valid, but they just serve different customer mindsets and deciding on which one to prioritise could make or break the opportunity.
Structure and Flexibility in Regards to Revenue Models:
The temptation to impose a single revenue model is strong, as it not only creates clarity for investors, simplifies messaging, and is easier to carry on, but as Isolde and Emanuel argued, flexibility is also what allowed them to innovate in the first place. If LinguaLeap standardised too soon, it might fix short-term confusion but kill the creative problem-solving that built its early traction. However, too much flexibility can also lead to chaos and in my opinion, the difficulty doesn’t fall in choosing just one side, but finding a certain rhythm between strategic consistency and adaptive thinking.
How I’d Mediate the Merger:
If I were the PM mediating Isolde and Emanuel’s merger, I’d start by getting them to map how each model actually creates value. Then I’d have them co-design pilots that test hybrid and mixed model approaches. I’d set clear success criteria (customer satisfaction, margin, retention) and establish regular check-ins where both could safely challenge assumptions. Eventually, in most situations, one would be “prioritised” one way or another, but I would make sure that both parties had done enough background work to understand the reasoning and to potentially agree that that decision would also benefit the other in the long run. To make this easier, I would get sufficient data and objective information to back my decision up so that it would never appear as a personal and subjective decision.
On speaking up:
Speaking up isn’t easy, but I’ve learned that silence can also be a form of inaction. When something feels off, I try to ask questions with curiosity, not confrontation. My rule is simple: if I see something unethical or unfair, then I’ll address it directly. It’s not about being loud but rather about creating space for honesty and accountability.
