@Arizona Not harsh regarding the survey, it seemed lightweight. I'm not sure how the survey came to be, however, I wonder if the statistical power or design of it is somewhat beside the point - which is to engage the founder and to have the society alerting members that there is a new product to try that is a lot like an OTC application only more effective.

@lastever The wording from the presentation: "Selections from a consumer survey conducted by International Hyperhidrosis Society on behalf of E&P analyst David Nayagam"

David is employed by Evans and Partners and has an interesting cv:

"As a former astronaut candidate finalist with the European Space Agency, David was invited to serve as a member of the inaugural Space Industry Innovation Council, a federal government initiative to outline a vision for the civil space sector and aid in the creation of Australia’s first space policy."

@lastever you make a good point it all seems to be marketing. The survey being the brainchild of Evans and Partners must have been designed to encourage potential shareholders I suppose. Doesn't seem to me to be an overly classy move, but I guess that's the way it goes. Here is the Evans and Partners report - click here

@lastever and @Arizona This was positioned as an initiative between E&P and IHhS.

It is quite common for investment banks / broker/ funds to commission their own primary market research to support valuations. And house brokers will often do this in consultation with the company. It's also not unusal for pharma companies to use this data in their investor communications.

I think in the case of $BOT there is an added impetus to want to put something into the void given the delay as a result of the FDA do-loop around labelling.

As to the quality of the research - it is what it is - market research. And it does have a use to $BOT to help them hone their marketing messages and marketing collateral. The $BOT relationship with IHsS has given them low cost access to customers, and so the fact that $BOT, IHhS and E&P have collaborated to produce these outputs struck me as absolutely normal and to be expected, based on what I have seen in the industry over the years. (In a previous life, I spent some time behind the glass at a market research company listening to focus group from different market segments talking about their experience managing certain chronic conditions, and how they engage with and comply with different therapies. Its something big pharma spend serious $ on, and the outputs are not that scientific,)

Of course, what has been presented is a subset of the data, aimed to serve the purpose of the presentation with a "sponsor's bias".

$BOT will almost certaintly have done further work directly with IHhS which they didn't refer to yesterday, but which they have referred to in the past.

@mikebrisy Thank you for your insight here. Its great to hear how it all works from the inside.

You wrote::

"I think in the case of $BOT there is an added impetus to want to put something into the void given the delay as a result of the FDA do-loop around labelling."

It certainly feels to this layman, as though they were scrambling to have something to beef up the presentation. It just felt a little "Mickey Mouse".

In a sense its good to hear that this is the norm.

Re the presentation more broadly, in general it felt as though plans were headed in the right direction. Given your understanding of the industry and of the company does that sound like a fair assessment to you?

@Arizona yes, I was impressed by yesterday's performance.

However, notwithstanding the pedigree of the management team, this is a new business with no operational execution track record.

My judgements are based on experience in Big Pharma. I believe the execution risk for $BOT is not to be underplayed.

One example that we've already seen is the mis-step in the patient information and labelling of the SOFDRA applicator, that led to 9-12 months launch delay. While these things happen to big pharma as well, the big companies have deep expertise in packaging and patient information development, and regulatory engagement. While scale does not necessarily mean excellence (and can indeed hide a lot of mediocrity!), the simple fact is that the executional capabilities will likely be less well-developed in start-ups, such as we have several of on the ASX - $BOT being one.

Execution risk is a real thing. And it is hugely important in sales and marketing in pharma.

And therefore, while I believe $BOT is worth north of $1, I believe the market is being rational in how it is assessing the execution risk, as reflected in the price today.

Overall, in terms of the webinar yesterday, I saw nothing that gave me concern, and was encouraged by the experienced network of partners $BOT is building around its strategy. Having said that, I have very limited direct experience of telehealth (I did spend 9 months as the #2 in a big pharma online experiment in the first dotcom boom! But that was another era altogether compared with what exists today. Online analytics and ability to track and analyse customer behaviour, and create tailored messages and offers is in another universe today compared when I was in the game.)

One thing I really liked is $BOT pushing out via the telehealth channel and the IHhS 18,000, before sending the salesforce loose on the prescribing dermatologists. Real patient behaviour, particularly any stats on the propensity to refill, will be highly relevant in getting healthcare professionals (HCPs) to prescribe. HCPs are conservative in changing prescribing behaviour, and will often look for evidence from KOLs. This sounds like it will be important for this product, given the nature of the condition, the limited efficacy of the product, and patient concerns about side effects. I could totally imagine that a HCP would hold off advocating the product until there is more solid RW evidence. In fact, Qbrexa supports this! The telehealth strategy offers one way to build more compelling real world data quickly.This is going to be absolutely fascinating to watch unfold over the next year.

Success is not a given!

Greetings @mikebrisy

It certainly appeared to me that BOT are establishing partnerships with quality operators and that these are integral to success.

The Telehealth idea sits well with me. As you say "compelling real world data quickly" will enable BOT to travel light and pivot when needed.

Thanks again for your insights.

@Arizona thanks.... your partnerships point is important.

I made some remarks yesterday about capability that I wanted to expand on, to ensure my assessment of $BOT is balanced (yesterday I focused on the negatives, and said the market is pricing $BOT rationally, but my valuation is much higher - which you could argue is logically inconsistent).

While I questioned their operational capability (purely because they are a start-up, with no operational track record, and operational capability is only developed through having functioning people, processes and systems), it is clear that the management team have tremendous commercial capability. That is indeed evidenced in the "platform" they have put together, which includes the partnerships.

In the webinar, we have seen the partnerships supporting the GTM platform: Klick for finding and engaging patients and UpScript Health for Telemedicine and fulfilment. These firms have deep capabilities in their respective areas that a single product company like $BOT could never hope to building in years.

These partnerships are then added to the established manufacturer, who is already operating at scale producing the product for Kakken in Japan, as well as the established collaboration with IHhS.

So, overall, because of the proven product-market fit in Japan, the proven commercial capabilities of the $BOT management team, and the capabilities of the network of strategic partnerships they have put in place, that is why I have a more optimistic assessment of the execution risk than the market has. And that is why I value the company north of $1 vs. the market today at $0.39.

Only time will tell who is right. Oviously, I'm backing myself!

@mikebrisy It feels to me that partnering is the only sensible way to go. Thinking about it, I'd be worried if they were attempting to go it alone. Outsourcing and/or utilising existing infrastructure as opposed to recreating the wheel, enables the BOT team to "move fast and break things", then change/pivot as needed.

International partnerships are surely essential, to have a shot in foreign markets. Kaken Pharmaceuticals (Japan) and Dong Wha Pharmaceuticals (Korea) appear to have been beneficial and enable the company to take significant, educational steps forward, without those steps being an existential threat.

Keep backing yourself. I'm there with you on this one. Held on SM and in RL