2026.10.09 | GP | MedTech | Revance Daxxify & Aesthetics Growth

Primary:

Revance Therapeutics

Associated:

Revance

001100101:unq

GALD:SW

Merz Aesthetics, Inc.

Crown Laboratories, Inc.

Viewpoint:

Former Executive

Moderator: Jeylan Mammadova (JM)

Kevin McKernan (KM), Director of Sales Operations, Data, and Analytics - Revance

SUMMARY

Overview

The discussion assessed Revance’s neuromodulator Daxxify, its RHA filler portfolio, integration with Crown, and competition in the US aesthetics market. The expert viewed RHA as the stronger, more credible product line, while Daxxify continues to face consequences from a poorly executed premium-price launch, uneven injector training, and weak customer retention.

Crown has improved financial discipline through territory consolidation, layoffs, broader sampling, and lower order minimums. However, portfolio cross-selling beyond toxins and fillers appears limited.

Key Insights

Daxxify’s original premium positioning failed because many customers did not perceive sufficiently longer duration to justify the price. The expert believes rebuilding adoption will be difficult because unfavorable early injector and consumer experiences damaged product perception. Better pricing, skilled injectors, and targeted consumer marketing could lift Daxxify into the low-to-mid-teens market share range. RHA strengthens Revance’s credibility and creates meaningful sales overlap with Daxxify accounts. Crown’s more disciplined account targeting and cost management should improve execution, although layoffs and employee departures may weaken institutional expertise. The most important indicators are account reorder rates, patient growth within accounts, net pricing, promotional effectiveness, salesforce turnover, and competitive launches. The moderator pursued the expert’s strong view that Daxxify’s launch problems remain a structural barrier and that Letybo may become a more effective market disruptor.

Competitive Landscape

10/12/2026 at 05:57 AM UTC

Product or company

Botox and AbbVie

Dysport

Positioning

Advantages

Pressures or weaknesses

Clear market leader

Deep account penetration, volume discounts, strong loyalty

Difficult for challengers to displace

Strong second-tier competitor

Loyal injector base

Potentially less vulnerable than smaller brands

Jeuveau and Evolus

Youth-oriented challenger

Effective branding among younger consumers

Could lose share if Daxxify improves execution

Xeomin and Merz

Smaller established competitor

Existing injector adoption

Viewed as a realistic share target for Daxxify

Daxxify and Revance

Low-share challenger

Longer duration for some users; supported by RHA

Premium pricing, launch damage, injection complexity, mixed tolerability

Letybo

New entrant

Lower price, strong market interest, experienced commercial team

Still early in US adoption

RHA

Credible filler portfolio

Stronger performance and reputation than Daxxify

Distribution agreement may face future uncertainty

SkinPen and skincare

Quantitative Insights

Supplemental portfolio

Adds breadth

Limited cross-selling impact

10/12/2026 at 05:57 AM UTC

Metric

Botox share

Expert assessment

More than 50%

Dysport share

Approximately 20%

Jeuveau share

Approximately 14%–15%

Xeomin share

Approximately 8%–9%

Daxxify share

Single digits

RHA share

Approximately 15%

Potential Daxxify share

Around 15% with competitive pricing and better injection execution

Botox consumer price

About $10–$16 per unit

Daxxify consumer price

About $12–$25 per unit

Daxxify price reduction

Approximately 50% during the initial repricing period

Distributed Daxxify volume

More than 1 million vials

Current minimum order

Roughly 3–5 vials

JM: Hi, everyone. My name is Jeylan Mammadova and I'm an analyst here at Guidepoint Insights. Today's call will focus on Revance and we have with us today Kevin McKernan, the former Director of Sales Operations for Data and Analytics at Revance. Before we start today's conference call, Kevin, could you please begin with an introduction to your professional background, particularly relating your roles and responsibilities during your time at Revance.

KM: Yes, hello. Good afternoon. My name is Kevin McKernan. I have over 15 years experience in the pharmaceutical and medical device industry across commercial and sales operations. When I was at Revance from Q4 2023 to approximately Q2 2025, I supported both the therapeutics and aesthetics sides of the business with an emphasis on sales operations data and analytics, which included targeting, incentive compensation, market share analysis, you know, how much we were gaining on both sides of the business for both Daxxify and also RHA on the aesthetic side, forecasting, sample management, etc.

JM: Perfect. Thank you so much for that. And just maybe with that, it would be great to start with an assessment of Revance's overall positioning in that medical aesthetics market, how they come in line directly with peers, and roughly what percentage of the market they command with Daxxify and the RHA collection.

KM: Yeah, so great question. So Daxxify, I would say in single digits current, market share wise. I would say they're probably the second lowest of the toxin group there. Botox, I would say over 50% they have the majority of the

10/12/2026 at 05:57 AM UTC

business. Dysport, approximately in the 20% range. Jeuveau, approximately 14, 15%. Xeomin higher than Daxxify, and then Letybo. They're more early stage new entrant in the toxin market for the USA.

JM: How do you see those faring in terms of, you know, ability to capture share and kind of what would be the drivers of that commercial growth for those newer products?

KM: Great question. I did feel and I still feel that it's possible that Revance has. The Daxxify plus RHA, which they can compete against the other major portfolios with AbbVie, Galderma, Merz, etc. I think the big issue, though, with Daxxify has been the launch was very bad. Initially they said Daxxify is going to last twice as long and therefore twice the price. However, when they went to market, injectors and consumers, they didn't feel like it lasted that time frame. Also, the pricing blew up in their face. In 2023, summer of 2023, they had to reduce the price. And at that time also, there was a lawsuit filed by investors because that was a big cornerstone of their go-to-market, the price of it. And then when they dropped price, a lot of investors felt like they had been misled. So I think that is a downside of Daxxify, the initial go-to-market launch. And even when I was there, they were trying to do different things to re-engage the market to different success. The other aspect of the go-to-market strategy is Revance had a kind of big ego where they didn't even want to speak with some of the smaller players, quote-unquote injectors. They wouldn't give them samples, they wouldn't even allow them to order unless it's like 10,000. And this is from my own personal experience knowing injectors in northern New Jersey. When I said, "Hey, have you heard about Daxxify?" They said, "Yeah, we would love to try it, but we can't get a sample." And I was kind of blown away by that. So I do think they would have to do something different strategically to potentially get market share. I don't know. I don't have a crystal ball. I don't know if they can ever really be seen as a big player after that failed launch. I do feel like Letybo has more buzz around it right now. Because it's a South Korean product, right? South Korean beauty care companies have a great reputation for quality. And that's like the new thing everyone's talking about. I don't hear a lot of people talking about Daxxify right now.

JM: That's super helpful. On the pricing side, how much of a pricing cut did they implement? And I guess with that, how did that pricing cut and then their general promotional strategy affect unit growth or even that customer retention? Were they able to win back any of the customers that they had lost?

KM: Great question. So they cut their price in more alignment with Botox. At that time, this is like 2023, 2024, they had cut it approximately in half, and I'm trying to look at something... I have some notes that I printed out... when it came to pricing. Hold on 1 second. Bear with me. I'll find that in a moment. But they did get, they were more well-received that the price wasn't a barrier for HCPs or consumers to try it. The issue is, and has been for any toxin player, is that AbbVie is so entrenched in all the aesthetics practices, and the larger the practice, the more volume they have, the better pricing they get from AbbVie. So I think it's very hard for Revance, specifically Daxxify, to ever really gain more than 50% share in a consumer account, and then therefore the market. And another thing too is, specifically... and I have firsthand experience with this... there's not a lot of injectors that know how to inject Daxxify initially. It's twice, you have to inject twice as much, you also have to inject twice as much of the solution. So I know for myself, I can speak from personal experience: I got Daxxify injected aesthetically on my face before I started at Revance, and I had a lot of redness and flare-up on my skin and bruising and swelling that I never had with any other toxin. And this is an injector that had told me she likes Daxxify, she has some of her clients that inject... they inject me. Just as I started, and I revamped in 2023, that was my first and last time I ever used it because the injector did not inject well. Also, I spoke with the head of medical while I was there. I forget his name. And I told him my experience. I also told him the pins- and-needles sensation as well that's unique with this toxin. And he had said, I don't know if this is true or not, that the peptide also caused some of that discomfort. I don't know if that's scientifically true or not, but as a consumer, I've been injected with other toxins and this was not a good experience. And again, I did get more duration from it. I would say for me, Botox lasts not the full 3 months, say 10 weeks. I would say Daxxify lasts, you know, double that. It definitely doesn't last, from my own personal experience, 6 months and also costs more. So I think with that, it's hard

10/12/2026 at 05:57 AM UTC

to win over injectors and then also consumers with that type of landscape. Does that make sense?

JM: It does, and that's definitely super helpful. And I guess once you have that negative perception, particularly KM: Mm-hmm.

JM: from an injector standpoint, what is the likelihood of selling that product again to that same injector pool? How difficult would it be for the sales force to persuade them to retry the product?

KM: I think it's very challenging. I really do. And I think that's where there's been high turnover at that company since I was there and then even post since I was there because of that, where what are you selling? What are you selling the HCPs on and consumers on? You know, the price is still a little bit more. I found what I was looking for earlier. I was trying to find the price per unit. So Botox, it could be $10 to $16 per unit. Daxxify, say $12 to $25 per unit. So it's definitely still on an average higher cost. So I don't know. I would think to say in a positive way, I think they have to really find preferred injectors of Daxxify that really know how to inject it. I think that's number one. Number two, they have to start, that's the HCPs, the clinics, the injectors, and maybe Daxxify do more marketing direct to consumer to have them re-engage with a preferred or select injectors that really know how to inject and feel comfortable injecting it. That would lead to a better quality experience. I just think, in my opinion, I just feel like so much time has evolved since they went to launch and then they tried to do different things to re-engage and I don't think it's worked. The one thing you had mentioned earlier, and I don't think I fully answered it when you spoke about when we start to the discount, when we discount the price in 2023, and then even in 2024, you can discount pricing on different marketing initiatives and sales initiatives. The issue is when you bring your ASP down, you have to sell X amount of more units to generate your revenue. And that's where I was heavily involved, whether firsthand or secondhand, because I used to sit next to the pricing manager where it's almost they're trying to... if you're trying to give away the product and you do all these extra programs, you're essentially, if you're not increasing it, the units, 10, 20, 30% above and beyond what you're already expecting, was it worth it? I would say probably not, especially if you're dropping your ASP. And customers and consumers and patients also get used to discounted pricing. So I think that is a big challenge with Daxxify still, is the price point.

JM: I guess with that, do you think there's still ample room to bring down that price? And if they were to do so, how much of the market could they realistically capture?

KM: I think if they drop price, you know, on an average, in par with Botox, I think they can get in the 15% range. I think they can get into the teens. I think they can compete against Xeomin. They have to overtake Xeomin, because Xeomin is, say, 8%, 9%, give or take. I think they can surpass Xeomin. I think they can surpass Jeuveau potentially. Dysport, they do a lot of work with, they do have some loyalists with Dysport. So I don't know if they can ever overcome Dysport. I think they can overcome Xeomin and Jeuveau if they have the pricing right and injectors know how to inject.

JM: And to your earlier point, you said that the combination of Daxxify and RHA could maybe strengthen their position and get some of the larger aesthetics players. How much of a commercial overlap exists between Daxxify and those RHA customers carrying both with sales force?

KM: Absolutely, 100%. It's definitely a multiplier, and I think that's where Revance had more credibility is with the filler. Even though Teoxane manufactures it, we basically have the right to sell, distribute in America. That has probably, RHA has probably like 15% market share in America. So I think they compete very well against the other fillers and I think that does boost the prestige of Revance. Because at one point, the, probably still is, the fillers are doing better than Daxxify. And I know we changed different sales plans to try to boost Daxxify to put weight to bring those sales up because RHA did launch prior to Daxxify in America through Revance. So I think it definitely helps the prestige and helps us compete, helps Revance compete against AbbVie, Galderma, Merz, et cetera, with the fillers.

10/12/2026 at 05:57 AM UTC

JM: And then to your point about having the preferred injectors or injectors who know actually how to inject Daxxify, how effective is their provider education or just generally injector training if you were to maybe compare with some of their other competes or just even their rebate programs and driving that sustained utilization of Daxxify and RHA?

KM: I think initially they had a strong injector training, especially pre-launch. And then I think over time it wasn't as strong. But I know they have tried at different times to really partner with the different injectors and then also the National Account Team for Revance to really make those training opportunities and selling the bag of, you know, RHA and Daxxify and really working hand in hand with them. I think they have gotten market share with some of those national accounts, but maybe not to the extent where it's really driving the business to where they want it to.

JM: Definitely. And maybe following the combination with Crown, what opportunities have you seen maybe them capitalize on in terms of maybe reducing the cost of sales or territory consolidation or what have been maybe the biggest obstacles to integration?

KM: Yeah, great question. You kind of hit the bullseye with the consolidation of territories, optimizing territories, reducing head counts on both sides of Crown and Revance, probably more so Revance. I think Crown, definitely more strategic than Revance. Crown, they were already owned by PE, private equity, and they had more of a business mindset mentality that the numbers are the most important thing. Revance, when they launched, were they originally from a California startup, it's kind of willy nilly. They didn't have a lot of financial discipline and discipline overall, and that's one of the reasons why essentially Revance was going bankrupt and they had to get bailed out. Obviously they got bought... I'm calling that a bailout... but they would have gone bankrupt, probably within a year if they didn't have a buyer. So that's one of the reasons why Crown got a steal deal on the stock price. I think they paid like $3.65 a share; it went down from that. A weird number, $6.66, initially was the initial offer, and then I think they went down to like $3.65 at time of closing, because Crown is very disciplined. I could see Crown... I know Crown has done a lot of things trying to re-engage the market. They did sell over 1 million vials; that was under Crown. Obviously that includes when it was under Revance as well. 1 million vials distributed. So that's something to be said about Daxxify. I know they tried the cross-selling of the SkinPen. I don't know if that's a huge add... I think the most important things are the toxin and the filler. That's really what most aesthetics accounts want. And then the SkinPen is more of an add-on than that, as part of the true portfolio, in my opinion, just my experience.

JM: Has there been any change to the strategy you referred to earlier where there was a minimum purchase requirement for or just they would target injectors of only a certain size. Has there been a switch in that strategy?

KM: Correct. Yeah, big switch. People are allowed to get samples and there is no real... I think the minimum is very minute. It's not 10,000. I think it's literally like 3 vials, which is usually what it takes to inject a patient. So they took that type of stuff out. I think it was 3 or 5. It was between 3 and 5. I think on the skin size, it was 5. Therapeutics, I think it was 3. I think it's 5 vials minimum, which makes sense, which that's what enables the injectors to get some initial patients on to see if they like it, and then that's what you want. You want 1 or 2 patients to have a good experience and you can recommend it to more people, 5, 10, and then the account market share goes up to, you know, could be 10% or 15% at an injector site.

JM: And in terms of the cross-selling, to what extent does that SkinPen product, along with maybe some of their other professional skincare products, does that get cross-sold with Daxxify and RHA fillers? Is it the same customer account? Is there a lot of overlap or are they pretty different? I'm trying to understand maybe what proportion of customers would purchase multiple product categories.

KM: I think overall it's small because the toxin and the filler are the main drivers. SkinPen is more capital equipment. It's a nice to have, but not as part of that initial portfolio. And some of the other skin products, I would say doesn't necessarily move the needle. Everything I've heard, my own research and just my own contacts, hasn't really moved

10/12/2026 at 05:57 AM UTC

the needle as far as additional penetration in the traditional aesthetics market. You know, if you think about their sunscreen, I don't think anyone's really talked about their sunscreen, and at any injector site, any account, any aesthetics practice, commercially.

JM: Does Crown's general broader portfolio, does that in any way help improve just the economics of selling Daxxify for maybe higher revenue per account or just increasing sales coverage? Is there any advantage from that perspective?

KM: I think so, that because they're PE backed that they are focusing on the right customers and going after the right customers and have a more strategic, consistent approach with the market. So I think under Crown, it could prosper more, and full transparency too is I've heard this before is that they probably just hold it for a few years and then sell it off, the toxin and the RHA. The RHA contract, I think, goes up in late 2020s. I think at latest 2030. So there's a chance that Teoxane, maybe they don't sign the contract with Crown and Revance and they either sell it, you have another aesthetics player take that over. I've heard that as well. So I'm very curious to see what happens in the future with the company.

JM: Maybe, why do you see Jeuveau and Dysport as the most vulnerable competitors to Daxxify? In terms of their ability to capture market share, is that more driven by pricing or injector loyalty?

KM: Yeah, I can see Daxxify over Xeomin and then Jeuveau, just based on the overall market because of the next two players after them. But I do think that that's Jeuveau. What Jeuveau does well, though, which I think Daxxify could potentially learn from is that Jeuveau goes after... Evolus goes after the youth, the 20-year-olds. They get them to start injecting in their 20s, and they have brand loyalty in their 20s, 30s. And I've seen that, and I've seen all the marketing for them. And I know a lot of younger women in their 20s, they like that because it's brand loyalty. But that's what I do think Daxxify, with the right injectors and the right price. They're a little more vulnerable. The Xeomin and the Jeuveau, I think they're definitely more vulnerable than the Botox of the world accounts.

JM: And in terms of competition, you also mentioned a South Korean neuromodulator that could outperform Daxxify. Was it Letybo?

KM: Letybo, yes.

JM: What makes that product maybe potentially a stronger competitive product than Daxxify?

KM: My understanding is the lower price. It is lower price and it has a lot of clout, it has a lot of excitement around it. I know people that I used to work with at Revance went over there on marketing and the commercial side and some of those people, I think they understand the toxin market, and I think they know how to approach the market better. After their experience with Revance's Daxxify, and again, I just also think it is a South Korean company... that is, South Korean beauty companies are known for high quality. It is true, it is backed by science, and the proof is in the pudding by all the youthful products they create collectively. And I think, too, is Letybo. I almost feel like they learned from Daxxify, too, of what not to do because I feel like Daxxify was the disruptor. That was the promise with Daxxify and I think they kind of failed at that. But I think the new entrant can be the disruptor, potentially. If it gets enough excitement and enough patients, it can kind of create that momentum to get more market share.

JM: Perfect. Thank you so much for that. That really wraps up our agenda. So maybe lastly, looking ahead into the next 12 months, what would be some of the most important operational or commercial indicators that we should be monitoring to determine whether the post-acquisition growth strategy is succeeding and maybe what would constitute in your view an upside or a downside performance scenario relative to kind of reasonable market expectations?

10/12/2026 at 05:57 AM UTC

KM: Yeah, I think all the Daxxify accounts. You want to see the reorder rate on them. You want to see if they're staying with Daxxify and increasing patients or are they dropping off? I think that's huge. Like I had mentioned earlier, that discounting and patient promotions, is that really driving business? Or is that eroding the ASP, the net price? Is the sales force turnover going to continue, or during this kind of integration or post-integration? The weak cross-selling, I think that's a huge kind of flag. The weak cross-selling across that broad portfolio. Again, my strong opinion and my strong experience is toxin and filler. Those are the things that people want, not necessarily the SkinPen and some of the other products. The new product launches from competitors and Letybo is one of them. I would be very concerned if I was at Daxxify. So I think one of the most important things to judge the effectiveness is how many accounts have tried it and how many are repeat orders and also that ASP, the net price. Where does that really lie? Where is it gonna lie with the company? I think the company, Crown, they did a good job of cutting costs post- acquisition. They had done a lot of layoffs and they cut a lot of fat off and I think that's wise. I think though with that, they're also maybe internally, they seem a little untrustworthy. They're there for the money, which, obviously as a business you have to be, but maybe the culture has impacted a lot. So those people that are there for a while, they left, they're taking their expertise, so it's hard to backfill some of that expertise, so those are some of the things I would be aware of.

JM: Perfect. Thank you so much. Really appreciate your time and the insights that you've shared today and we'll definitely follow up as we do more work here.

KM: Perfect. Thank you. I really appreciate it. Hope you have a great day.

JM: You too. Thank you so much.

KM: All right. Take care.

JM: Daxxify. Bye.

DISCLAIMER: The statements or opinions expressed today are those of the Advisor and not Guidepoint, who disclaims all liability for the content provided. The Advisor may not disclose material nonpublic or confidential information or any information that would cause the Advisor to breach any duty or obligations. Guidepoint is not a registered investment advisor and the information provided is not intended to constitute investment advice.

10/12/2026 at 05:57 AM UTC