Good morning, everybody. Welcome to the 44th Annual Goldman Sachs Healthcare Conference. We're really pleased to kick off this day with a whole variety of companies across the spectrum. Here today, we're joined by Revance: Mark, Dustin thank you very much for joining us. Looking forward to a discussion. So much has happened over the past 18 months, let's call it, right, for the company in terms of just the extreme scope and whatnot. I think people have heard a lot from the both of you. I always like to make these conversations a little bit about making sure that we understand the people behind this and I think people maybe don't understand. Just a little snapshot on your personal journey. One of the things about this business the aesthetic side is like everybody came from the same nest at some point. There's a lot of interdigitation, et cetera. I think it'd be interesting to hear a little bit about your professional journey. We'll start with you, Mark. Sure, absolutely. Thanks for the invite. Glad to be here. I grew up in the commercial side of med tech companies cardiovascular, general surgery, and ultimately started and founded a cardiac surgery company that was acquired by Medtronic in the early 2000s. I went into the venture side, where I headed up venture investing, doing healthcare primarily med device investing for a boutique firm that did technology investing as well. Through that, got involved in a number of different startups in different companies and board positions, which ultimately led me to a company ZELTIQ Aesthetics, where I was asked to join the board when it was still a private company as executive chairman and was executive chairman up and through the company going public. After the first Q2, where the company struggled a little bit the board asked me to step in as CEO, which I did in 2012. Ran that company until 2017 when it was acquired by Allergan, and went back and did more board work, both private company and public company boards. One of the boards I ended up joining in 2017 was Revance Therapeutics. In 2019, the board asked me to step in as CEO. I've been CEO at Revance Therapeutics coming up on four years. Somewhere up in the cloud there is a mark.foley@allergan.com email. Yeah, right. That's kind of what I was alluding to. Right. Dustin, pronounce your last name and tell us what's your journey since you've become president? Sure. It's pronounced Sjuts actually so it's pretty easy to pronounce hard to spell. I started my career actually in pharma biotech as well. Actually, early days, Allergan, when we were transitioning, they were transitioning from kind of that medical dermatology to launching the Botox product trying to start into that cash pay. I was part of that team, leading that kind of growth there. Did a variety of roles there in aesthetics. Also then did a stint in ophthalmology, which is obviously a large portion of their business from a reimbursed perspective. Ran an eye care team there in ophthalmology. Did some startup things in and out of aesthetics after that. ltimately moved to China, was Nestlé Skin Health general manager for China, for the medical dermatology and aesthetics business there, and then joined Revance in 2018. You know, obviously, we were relatively small at the time. We had a little over 100 employees now north of 600 so it's been quite a journey so far. Mm-hmm. No, that's fascinating. That's one of the reasons why I wanted to ask this, in part because your background actually equips you well for threading all sorts of things. One of the things we'll talk about is the therapeutic opportunity. All of a sudden, that's, yikes, not cash pay, that's reimbursement, right? Mm-hmm. China, super important market, et cetera. I also did pick up the way you pronounce the company's name. What's the cool way to say it, Revance or Revance? I'll go with Mark's opinion first. Yeah, I call it Revance. Okay You know, we're open to- Yeah, that's right. Who we're talking to? Great. You can stretch it out if you need to. Okay, let's talk a little bit about just the market segment overall. I think a lot of people here, some are involved in your stock some are sort of lateralizing over from the aesthetics opportunity for AbbVie and emerging space, et cetera. Very dynamic, a wonderful, resilient market, and yet subject to, you know, sort of the climate of the broader economy on a global basis, et cetera. Maybe just sort of frame for us your perspective on terms of where we are in terms of the overall, you know, impact of those aspects and market demand, et cetera. Yeah. Well, I think first off, the overall aesthetic market continues to be very robust. We'll focus on the US since that's the main market that we're participating in. Mm-hmm. If you look at the overall penetration in the facial injectables category in the US it still has a ways to go compared to a lot of other markets particularly if you look at some of the Asian markets as well. I think that's driven this ongoing high single-digit low double-digit growth over time. You have more young people entering the market that are trying to put off the aging process. You have people living longer and trying to preserve the best version of themselves that don't want invasive procedures. Overall the growth characteristics of the market as a whole continue to be very favorable, and we think are going to be that way for a long period of time. What you're talking about is, you know, is there any disruption to that long-term growth horizon based on the economy today? We talk about we've just not seen it in the markets that we're calling on or the accounts that we're calling on, because we are in a subset of the markets. Based on our prestige strategy those are accounts that aren't advertising price as the main way to lure customers. Mm-hmm. They deal a little bit more on being established and sort of the reputation that they've developed over time. Even if you go back over time and you look at what impact a significant economic downturn could have on the aesthetic space you go back to 2008. Mm-hmm. In 2008, I think the, you know, Botox business was down 4% year-over-year. The reason is that for toxins particularly for those that are in the channe it becomes a little bit of something that is lifestyle. I liken it to hair color. Once you start coloring your hair, it's really difficult to then just stop, right? Because you get used to a look and something that you're comfortable with. Fillers have seen a little bit more disruption in difficult economic times. It's a little higher ticket item. They last 12- 18 months, so people don't get treatments as often. I think back in 2008, fillers were down in the high teens. You know, ours, we're still a share taker as we come into this market. While we're part of the ecosystem that we believe is going to help grow the market for us it's really about. Can we capture more share of an account and can we open up new accounts? At least at this point in time, we continue to feel very good about the accounts that we're calling on and not seeing much of an economic impact. Got it. In particular, this is kind of a tough area for the street to pay attention to because they're not, I give you a script, right? Right. We use relevant, and it's talked about in terms of, like, demand dynamics, Google searches, right? Consumer confidence index. Are there any particular insightful tools that help us navigate the prestige segment? You know, beyond some of the other laterals it's just like Visa credit card spending or LVMH demands, et cetera, is how good of a proxy are, you know, the commentary that comes out about the tone and confidence of the, you know, luxury goods consumer with the prestige segment? Is that a pretty good overlap of the Venn diagram? Yeah, it is. Again, what I would say is, you know, those to us are more macro trends. Certainly luxury goods spending, which, you know, when there was this narrative that aesthetics is likely going to feel some softness because the economy, you weren't seeing that show up in the luxury goods side of it. As it relates to our business, particularly, we're less susceptible to that for the reason that I mentioned. I mean, even in a really difficult economic time, Botox being down 4%. Mm-hmm. Our ability to drive revenue growth is more dependent on can we open new doors and can we go deeper in the accounts that we're in? Mm-hmm. There's a big enough base of business already. We're on like what, 5,500 accounts out of 40,000. Mm-hmm. We're going to be a lot less susceptible to any sort of temporary swings. I mean, on the margin maybe but ours is much more about can we get more adoption in the business that is already there? Mm-hmm. We certainly look at those things. I think Google searches particularly as it relates to Daxxify, are less relevant because we haven't done a lot to try and activate the consumer. We've stated our strategy. We're in a select number of accounts. We haven't been doing a lot of spend because we aren't trying to activate more customers out there. Our stated strategy is we're going to partner with the injector. Mm-hmm. We think the injector is best positioned to inform what choice the patient makes. Over time, we will certainly ramp that up. I don't know that Google Trends right now are a great proxy for us. Mm-hmm. Yeah, no that was our observation since the start of the year, that it feels a little bit too early- Right. For the reasons that you characterized, et cetera. US commercial launch, this is really everything that's driving the stock and what we're doing, and we're kind of at this, at the end at the 3rd month in this inflection. I guess the preview program ended, at, kind of in the end of March. I think the words that you guys used were broader and deeper, right? To put some numbers behind this, I think there are about, like, 5,500 accounts that you guys have been in as of the end of the Q1, right? Historically, in terms of a commercial presence, with just the fillers, you were able to kind of pull in 500 new accounts, et cetera. You know, let's just talk about N times price and N, the number of accounts that you're out there. Is that cadence pretty similar, or are we seeing a little bit of mojo and accelerating trends now that you're also equipped with a neurotoxin? How do we think about this account number? I'll throw it over to Dustin to hit that one. Yeah, I think on the filler side, you know, we want to talk about that is actually a number that happened retroactively. Meaning, it wasn't planned to open up 500 accounts. We had around 100 or so territories, as you mentioned. That was a summation. You might have had some territories open up a few new accounts, and some territories maybe went deeper with those accounts. That wasn't a predicted number. It just happened to be kind of pretty consistent. If we look at it now with our portfolio, we've got a lot of puts and takes around that. The positive side of things, to open up more accounts, is that you ultimately have added 50 or so new heads. Now we have around 150 folks out there selling both toxins and fillers versus 100. You would think, okay, there's an opportunity to kind of open up new accounts. However, you also have a sales force that has now two products to sell, and two very large products in very early adoption growth areas in terms of fillers are still growing, RHA is still growing, we've got that opportunity to go deeper even into the accounts we already have. I think it'll be similar to the filler side, but it'll be a tale of an average of kind of some territories opening up a few more and others going deeper into the accounts. We really feel like the overall strategy is best to continue to go as deep as you possibly can. A new account indicator may not be a good or a bad thing, depending on where we're at in that kind of territories dynamic. Mm-hmm. You'll see that different geographies are quite different. Some are much larger and smaller in terms of geographic scope, and so, their ability to open up new accounts may or may not be kind of hindered by that. We'll keep an eye on what it looks like from a predictive standpoint, but right now, that isn't a goal that we set. Hey, we need to open up this many new accounts. We believe that the best way to kind of continue to grow is focus on revenue going deeper into accounts. Mm-hmm. Because ultimately the more share of patients that you can get in less practices. Mm-hmm. The more opportunity you have to keep going and adding more practices later. Yeah. No, there was a very targeted strategy of going to have folks, you know, aside from good music and barbecue, flying into Nashville, I think on weekends, right? They didn't. These are business people, right? Right. You know, they've got their clinic schedules, et cetera, and people were being trained on-site, and that was very intensive. It was actually kind of it seemed like a good two-way flow. You were learning a lot about the vocabulary. A lot of these injectors are artists and they have certain ways about thinking about the syringe feel. We've talked about this in the past. I've been following this space around 20 years and this is my first. Sure. [crosstalk] going way back with this board. It's interesting with that group now y our approach of going into these accounts with these prestige accounts, some of them have now gone home. There's multiple practitioners. You're not requiring everybody to, like, make the trip to Mecca, right? I think it's one per group, et cetera. Now you also have this built-up sales force. What's the dance like between those folks and, like you said, getting deeper within those accounts who have been through the preview program? That's currently, like, ground zero for you, right? Right. Yeah, well, let's talk maybe a little bit about sort of the journey that an account goes through in order to become a customer. Mm-hmm. There's the training part of it that you talked about. Mm-hmm. In the early stages, we felt, you know, it was really important to get people out to Nashville. It also indicated a level of commitment on the part of the practice, too, because there's no shortage of accounts out there that are saying, Hey, can you send me some Daxxify samples? I'd love to try it. I know how to inject toxins. Right. Our belief is that in order to get successful adoption over time, is that we need people to make some level of commitment, right? They need to educate their staff. They need to be open and willing to understand the differences in reconstitution. They need to understand how to set expectations. They need to understand how to price things. We've been very intentional about the strategy to make sure that we can go deep in accounts and that they get a reasonable amount of experience to inform their go-forward strategy. Based on that, we started there in Nashville with the in-person that you talked about. We did supplement that with virtual training so that if they sent one person, we could provide training to the other parts of the practice. Mm-hmm. We move into the commercial launch phase we are standing up more virtual training options. That's step one in the process. Step two is a rep schedules a day to come out to the practice. They book a number of patients many of them are gonna be staff members. They bring in free samples to treat them. Mm. The practice will watch over time to look for how does that patient look at week two to week four, which is sort of that acute look that they're looking for. Mm-hmm. Beyond that, some will buy at that point others will want to wait a little longer and see some of the duration play out over time. That's the normal cadence that these accounts are gonna go through, which was different than what we saw in that December group that we picked as part of the preview where they pre-ordered upfront without any experience with the product because of the excitement to be a part of it. That wasn't really your expectation, the magnitude of pre-ordering, right? It was- Showing up in J.P. Morgan with that 42 print is pretty- It was a pleasant surprise, and I think it speaks to the excitement about people using this product. That group also knew that they were gonna have sort of exclusive access to the product for a period of time, and they were eager to put that out in their communities that, Hey, I'm the one who has this. Come see me." Now that we're in the launch, we're expecting accounts will go through a more traditional adoption curve, which again is the training the reps. The reps are gonna be the big bottleneck, as Dustin talked about, and I shouldn't say bottleneck, that will be the rate limiter. Mm-hmm. The reps need to sell RHA, because they need to continue to support accounts that have Daxxi, scheduling a time with a practice to bring product in to make sure that they can carve out time to treat patients that they can do in-services with the staff is gonna be the most important piece. Mm. Then they'll go through their process after that. I don't know if you wanna add anything to that? I think it's good. I think within the practices themselves that we're able to do the ordering upfront, naturally, you're doing some sort of packages or sort of the strategies for how they order, right? Right. The bigger the order the better the deal kind of thing, and I'm sort of sliding my way towards the pricing and cost question. Sure. Talk about what the offer packages are like for the people who are willing to get, you know, ambitious early. I think pricing is one of those things we've been asked about for a lot of years. We started working on pricing in 2018 because it's something that's unique in this space. Most of the pricing programs now are designed to be on yearly commitments, right? almost like your airline miles you need to hit so many points per year. Mm to maintain a status and maintain a price. Mm-hmm. That's ultimately how a lot of the companies kind a set their guardrails for the pricing. We knew that was tough to do with new launch products. With RHA, we were thoughtful about transactional pricing that did give slight incentives for volume but those volumes are not based off of a multiple quarter type situation. Meaning, stocking was not necessarily something we were trying to drive. We were trying to drive a commitment level. If you purchase a bit more and you're using more product, you should get a slightly better price. We didn't wanna put this idea that if you buy a year's worth of filler, then you would get a significantly improved price. We did that with RHA, and we did the same with Daxxify. The pricing has been the same from that preview program all the way through. There's not been special incentives for different groups. There's tiered pricing based off of your transactional purchase order at that given time but the volumes of that discount and the volume of that order is not significant for most practices. You're not saying buy that quarter's worth of product or even a month's worth of product for a lot of practices. What's unique is that both fillers and toxin order patterns vary by practice. Some practices buy fillers once a quarter, some buy once a couple of times a year because of the different things that go on toxins typically are bought much more frequently. They'll buy weekly in some cases. Some cases, in some practices maybe it does extend to a monthly type thing. Most toxins in the space are refrigerated so your ability to have a bunch of refrigerated storage is very different than your ability to have, you know, unrefrigerated storage with dermal fillers. It's been a bit of a dynamic that we're adjusting and kind of trying to see how it does because for some accounts, is it a good thing that they've ordered five times in a month? If the volume is the same as somebody else that's ordered one time in two months and your share is actually higher with the other practice, it's hard to gauge right now on the sense of is order pattern, specifically that market share indicator that you want. As we kind a grow into this, we'll be watching those pieces to understand how to best kind of judge that market share penetration. Yeah, building on the pricing side of it, for the toxin, it's our belief that we're 10%-40% more than competitor than Botox. Mm-hmm. The reason we have a range is part of it's our buying program, where you can buy any one of four tiers based on- Mm-hmm How much you purchase at that given time. There's a range of acquisition prices that practices get. Are they part of a large buying group? Do they meet certain levels? It's gonna be a range. Right now, we're on average, we're hearing from our accounts that they're charging about 1.5 times the price for Daxxify than they are for Botox. When you do the math there's still a lot more margin for them to capture, even with paying a premium on the acquisition side in terms of what they can charge the patient and how much more margin that brings in. Mm-hmm, right. Naturally, you've outlined the fact that this is a B2B business as far as. Right Revance is concerned, and then there's the going off to the customers. In terms of the customer feedback and the experience, it refers both to the people, the injectors. Right as well as the real-world patient experience. Share with us some of the anecdotes, in particular, if there's anything that differs from, you know, kind of your expectations and the clinical trial experience with the Daxxify. Once you get it out into the messy real world things can blur a little bit. Sure. I'll let Dustin start and then I'll add too. Yeah, I think we've been really excited with the feedback both from providers, injectors, and also the consumers. From a duration perspective we've seen that be very consistent with what we saw in the clinical trial programs where you've been able to extend the duration profile beyond what they're seeing with some of their current neuromodulator usage. Some of the more anecdotal things that have been interesting is we started seeing it early in preview with the onset of action, where people were taking immediate photos on Instagram and other things like that where they were seeing a result of Daxxify early on that they weren't used to. We've got a toss that up too. Maybe that happened just a few times and it's not something that's going to be significant but it's now becoming pretty consistent across utilization where we're seeing a good early onset with Daxxify. We're also talking about some skin quality improvements. We knew, likely with the way our peptides formulated and our overall formulation, that we potentially could have some value there. That's starting to play out, where they're feeling that they get a certain skin quality effect or texture and tone that they like with the look of the product. Lastly, they're seeing that they're able to achieve their aesthetic results for that extended period of time without that feeling of heaviness. There's oftentimes talked about increase in dosing and things like that and how does that affect, you know, duration. If you increase your toxin dose too high oftentimes you can get a heaviness look of effect. T hey're not seeing that with Daxxify. We've been pretty pleased with how that translates across, obviously, the efficacy standpoint and also duration. Mark, do you want to add some more? Yeah, I'd just say, I mean, the feedback that we've had also reinforced the preview program that we did for all the things that I mentioned. It's the first time the product's been used outside of clinical trials. As you mentioned earlier, they're all artists and they all like to tinker and do things a little bit differently. Mm-hmm. We learned some great things in the preview program because we were disciplined and had a group of folks that were committed and were gonna try it. For example, we had questions around reconstitution. We know that they're all going to reconstitute in very different ways. How complicated was that going to be since, you know, our on-label dose for glabella is 40 units, Botox is 20, they're going to have to push twice as much product even though we both have the same amount of core neurotoxin. Mm-hmm. With that math, and that going to be an issue? We were pleasantly surprised that does not seem to be. They have figured that out pretty straightforward. On the pricing side in the early days some were pricing 2x, and I think that there was a casualness around the duration of six months with the narrative 2x. Well, some of those folks saw some patients coming back at four and five months saying, Hey, I'm not getting the duration. We had to refocus them: Hey, this is a median duration of six. You haven't got to those on the other side, n ow they're seeing those other patients that are coming back on the other side of six months. I think that they've, you know, pulled back a little bit on one and a half times, but that expectation setting is a big part of it. I think we've been able to incorporate a lot of those learnings. Then some of the things that Dustin mentioned around earlier onset of action, better skin quality, less heaviness, all of those things. We've now got a lot of anchor tenants, I'll call them, who have really leaned in, where Daxi's become a majority of their practice. Mm. Now we've got these proof points out there that we can point to say to anyone that's coming up, Hey, why don't you talk to this account? Or whatever, because they can share with you their journey and their experience and how. I just had a call last week from a physician, plastic surgeon, who called and had some of those patients that came back at four five months, and he just called me to say: Hey, listen, I just got to tell you, I just had a bunch of patients come in. They're past six months, super happy. They're requesting Daxxi. I think that we're seeing the clinical performance play out in a very consistent way as a clinical trial. Do practitioners have debates in terms of the question of, Well, it lasts longer, so potentially fewer patient visits, right? If you do the annualized math in terms of, you know, their business, so to speak, is there a little bit of a debate sometimes with some of the folks who are saying: Well, if I don't see, you know, Mrs. Jones as many times per year, you know, there's different ways of looking at it? Talk to us a little bit about how the practices that you're interacting with are thinking about that. I mean I think it's a big competitive narrative. It's funny that there's two narratives out there. Hey, it's just a dosing issue, and you can get duration with ours if you add more dose. Oh, by the way, patients don't want duration, right? Because, or, you might not want duration because you're not going to see them as often. A couple things there. One is, if you look at the data by some of the major competitors out there on the frequency of toxin visits, a majority of patients come in 2 times a year or less. What we would argue is that for those patients who are already coming in two times a year or less, why not give them a better outcome give them a better experience, and you can make more margin, right? A lot of the practices number two, that we're calling on have waiting lists. It's less about the frequency of the patient visit, and it's more about how do they make the best use of their time? How do they take a patient coming in twice a year and partner it with the filler and make it more valuable for the patient and for themselves, and now they can treat more patients and do other things. For those patients that maybe were coming in four times a year you can offer them something else. Maybe you come in and you get a laser procedure so they can keep them on that curve. I don't know if you want to add something to that. I think that, excuse me, that was a narrative, really, that was the early days of aesthetics, when the whole strategy was recruit a patient from your medical practice, convert them to Botox, and then retain them. That was how they grow their practices because there wasn't a lot of aesthetic offerings. Now, there's so many different offerings in the practice from skincare offerings, laser offerings, dermabrasion offerings, fillers, variety of things, that patients are coming back for other things. The toxin used to be the reason why you would get them into the practice, which is important in some places, on kind of the smaller practices. For the majority, they're seeing that patient on a beauty regimen for a variety of different things. We believe that just because Daxxi in patients would be two times a year, doesn't mean you only bring them in two times a year. Actually, bring them in again, maybe they get filler that time. Bring them in again, maybe they get a skincare procedure that time with one of your aestheticians. We believe that narrative is kind of moving, kind of differently now with all the innovations in the space. You, and you've seen that with fillers, too. With some of the innovations. Mm-hmm. -in fillers- Mm-hmm. some lasted longer, right? Yeah. Now that's a big issue. Well, for the physician, does the filler last long enough, right? Yeah. They're more concerned that the patients aren't going to be happy with the outcome. We believe at the end of the day that if it's a great product and delivers a great outcome, the consumers are going to demand it and that's going to drive it. Still, most patients come in two times a year less. Last anecdote is fun, is that if they come in and they don't need their toxin they don't leave without spending money. I think that's been a thing that people have said. If they've come to the practice and you look at them and say, You actually, I don't need you to treat your toxin today. They usually get a procedure they haven't had before. While we talk about annual consumers think about what they spend at that transaction. Mm-hmm. Right? They don't add up what they spend at Target for the full year or Nordstrom for the full year. It's like, what do I want to spend today at this transaction? We believe it actually can surprise the patient in a good way allow you to provide them some other service like a filler in that practice. Mm-hmm. Obviously, this brings us a little bit to the filler side the RHA business which is quite an elite product well-received in Europe. Initially, you know, a vital tool in terms of the door opener now. Are you seeing some virtuous cycle there? Should we be thinking about the filler business as being status quo, or is there more to come there and the performance is going to be juiced? What's- Yes, I think RHA is a great product line. We've got four fillers, and we've been the first company to launch all four pretty much at the same time with three of them having the same indication. Now we're expanding the profile with our partnership, with Teoxane with more indications. So it's being studied in clinic for other indications that will allow us to train on label with that indication for those products. We, we look to continue to expand that. Also, excuse me, exploring other technologies within dermal fillers that we're able to launch. From an innovation pipeline perspective, we feel really good. From kind of the market dynamics, there's obviously puts and takes. The reps, we got more reps now. Mm-hmm. We should be able to go into more geographies and more accounts but we also have more products and more priorities because you've got to sell Daxxify on top of RHA. We definitely see that mid to long-term opportunity to continue to grow both of them at a high clip. It'll just be there'll be puts and takes at the individual level in terms of individual territory, you know, where RHA fits and Daxxify fits there too. They all carry the same product mix and from a compensation perspective, so, they're equally focused on RHA and Daxxify with specific gates and things to make sure that you have kind of continued performance about both. Yeah, I just maybe add one thing on that. I mean, the launch of RHA, you know, we had hoped to have our Daxxi approval at the time that we had RHA. We didn't. We launched RHA with the same prestige strategy very targeted focused build a strong base build a strong foundation. We did it in the middle of the pandemic. Mm-hmm. As great as the RHA product line is, which we believe it's the best filler line out there, it's less differentiated than Daxxi is relative to the other neurotoxins. Despite that, we've demonstrated the ability to continue to build a solid foundation and grow in the market versus the traditional pharma launch, where it's race as quickly as you can. I think that foundation that we've built is going to allow us to unlock more accounts with Daxxi in ways. We just, it continued to really validate the strategy that we've taken in this market. You know, if you look at our $ sales in Q4 of last year on RHA and annualize it compared to the market, you know, we're roughly a 10% share player without a toxin or anything else. Mm-hmm. -in just the filler market. You talked about we're at that kind of inflection point where you're going to be in position to do more sort of promotion and marketing. Is this about correct in terms of... And what is the extent and what are your plans in terms of how much push and visibility you'll put out there, and implications in terms of maybe, you know, the investment and the level of feet on the street, the 150 sales force? Will there be a consequence to doing that you'll need to sort of then chase or mirror? I think it's a balance. I think we all know in most sales, and specifically aesthetics, your ROI is the highest with sales reps. What's that balance of sales reps? The next ROI is education and training, needle-to-skin training, and then you've got your consumer piece somewhere kind of after that. From the rep perspective, we break that down. We feel really good about the size sales force that we have. It gets us into this next phase, where we have to continue to look at expansion and those opportunities. Over time, once we look at those productivity metrics around where we need to sprinkle in other reps to kind of build on geographies, we can do that. We don't have aspirations to have the largest sales force in aesthetics. We think that our strategy around the prestige market allows us to go deeper. We'd much rather have, you know, higher market share with less accounts than having to go out to all 40,000 and get a very small market share percentage. We'll evaluate the rep kind of size probably each year to look at it but we wouldn't anticipate any major kind of increases to be disruptive. It'd be more of opportunistic as you look at kind of how the geographies break down. We've long talked about 200-250 is probably where you want to get to. What's the right time to kind of build on that. Mm-hmm. -with 150. We want to surround that with our training and education program. We've been heavily invested in that through Nashville and also through our virtual options. It's certainly done and shown a proven, you know, success track record with RHA, and we'll be doing that with Daxxify. On the consumer side, we do believe that there's metrics or there's activities that you can do to support the practices that are providing good Daxxi outcomes with the appropriate amount of consumer information. We'll be balancing that here in the back half. The environment's changing. You don't have to spend significant dollars on the consumer to activate them. I think you can be much smarter and much more targeted with your efforts, especially with those practices that have leaned in with us. For the first time in 20 years, we have a message that's different. Everybody else in the toxin space can basically say the same thing. They just change the model or the colors. We now have a different differentiated benefit, and so I think we can leverage that uniquely in the consumer space. Got it. Okay. I had told myself before this, I was like: I'm gonna give, you know, fair shake to the therapeutic side. It turns out I'm just as bad as my peers here watching the clock count down here. Let's go to the therapeutic side. We have PDUFA in August. A lot of confidence there. Is there a prestige segment within therapeutics? I'll throw you back. Yeah, I wouldn't call it prestige. I think therapeutics is a very. I'm asking because you sort of articulated... Yeah. We know earlier in this call about kind of like your measure of the product. Yeah, prestige and aesthetics is pretty defined, and we know- Yeah ... why that is. Right. It, what we'll say in therapeutics, it will be the early adopter segment. Just like anything in therapeutics, you need those KOLs that have that confidence to provide information to the broader community around how to use the product outside of clinical trial programs. In clinical trial, you've got a fixed dose paradigm, you've got fixed injection points. In the real world, especially with bot use, they use it for a variety of indications. They use a variety of units and doses and a variety of injection points. They even use different, you know, diagnostic to determine where to inject. If you go too fast, you'll have a bunch of dabblers where they might choose one or two patients to try it for cervical dystonia or maybe. Mm-hmm ... some other indication. That's really where they'll stop because they're not real confident, because they're afraid of side effects in the therapeutic space. Mm-hmm. Similar to aesthetics. Aesthetics has been able to kind of wall that off. We feel like our strategy in therapeutics will mimic aesthetics in the sense that we'll take the group that's gonna be the most willing to kind of provide us that feedback build the algorithm of information that we need to unlock the fastest amount of growth. There will be a preview program. I wouldn't call it prestige, but it would be more on. Mm ... the preview program for those that are willing to build that confidence and data set to teach others of how to integrate Daxxify in the therapeutic space. Maybe to build on that just real quickly. If you look at the space that we're going into with cervical dystonia, there's about 5,000 injectors. Mm-hmm. 2,500 accounts. Okay. The top 20%, is 70% of the volume. You're talking about a much more targeted group of customers that, to Dustin's point, by engaging some of these folks that do a lot of it, that are the thought leaders, that will go through this experience and credential the product, that we think that that's really the right strategy for us. The other thing, too, which we'll wait to how it plays out if you look at the clinical trial data in cervical dystonia our side effect profile with dysphagia and muscle weakness- Mm-hmm ... was very low. You can't do cross trial comparisons, but it was encouraging low. While the duration profile is certainly something that's of significant interest. Mm-hmm as Dustin pointed out, one of the things that they're very concerned about is side effects in these patients. Mm-hmm. We're really encouraged with the performance of this product, and we're anxious to see how that plays out in the real world. Last week, and we just hosted the faculty, which would be that preview program for therapeutics. Mm-hmm. As Mark shared the interest in Daxxify is significant in therapeutics because you've got not just the duration but efficacy. Mm-hmm. Many patients that get treated with bots, don't even get efficacy two to 12-week period of time when they're actually asked to be retreated by the managed care company. They cannot get treated before 12 weeks. They were really excited. Now, obviously, aesthetics has a very different ramp trajectory. Mm-hmm than what Therapeutics has, but that market is large, growing and has been underserved. Once you're approved, what should we be as mindful of looking at the label in terms of the extended duration on the therapeutic side? I think you would anticipate, with all of the labels, since it's an sBLA, all we're going to do, and that's the most effective thing to do is put all the data that you have in your clinical trial program into your label. Mm-hmm ... which allows you the most amount of opportunity for the providers to look at that data. We had a very large data set with our cervical dystonia program with ASPEN, that would likely be there into that. That'll always be any indication we have. We'll just be adding a section of data- Mm-hmm ... with all one label today. Once you're approved, obviously, as a therapeutic indication we'd be probably seeing from a 3rd party the published, wholesale acquisition cost, the WAC. Should we anticipate that there would be a premium as there is relative in the aesthetic opportunity? I think the uniqueness is that we'll both be the first company that's launched aesthetic bot first and so our ASP will be tied to that overall ASP in aesthetics. That's what you'll have to launch with in therapeutics. They do a Q2 look back, and so there'll be a little bit more volatility in our ASP, likely than what we're used to in therapeutics. It likely would not be at a significant premium. No, because we've had to start in aesthetics. As you know, everyone else started in therapeutics, what they try to do is to have the price as high as they can in therapeutics because of the volume and that, and then do things to discount in aesthetics that don't hit that ASP. We're actually gonna kind of be the opposite, so we'll be coming in a little bit. We feel like we'll have a good economic benefit for both the provider the patient and the managed care team. The last question I wanted to make sure to get in on the therapeutic side. You have not leaned in yet to the migraine opportunity. What's the house view in terms of what you need to see in order to commit to move forward there? Is it some level of initial CD sales? Is it a strategic call? I'll go hit that one. Yeah, I think we want to get launched into CD and just get experience in therapeutics. As you know, we completed a phase 2 trial in upper limb spasticity. Yep. We thought, let's get into CD and see how this performance benefit of our product is adopted in the marketplace and what sort of read through. We've had a number of different practices submit high ITs for migraines, we're looking at, you know, is that something we would fund to get some early experience? You know, we've said let's get into CD in terms of how it informs our next steps in the therapeutic market. There might be some work that we do, if we decide to support some of these IITs, that could help inform our go-forward strategy on migraine. Just as a little bit of a plug, we're gonna do an investor day in September. Mm-hmm ... at our office in Nashville, and we'll have a more fulsome discussion around aesthetics and therapeutics, Daxxi, longer range plans. Okay. We'll look forward to that. You guys have some awesome swag. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Mark Foley, Dustin Sjuts, thank you very much for joining us. Thank you so much, Chris. Okay. Appreciate it. Thanks, everybody.