Survey reveals few can name ingredients in injectable beauty treatments

Americans are more ingredient-conscious than ever before — but not in all areas, according to new research.

A survey examining the mindsets of 2,000 Americans aged 30–54 reveals a growing cultural trend: people are paying closer attention to what’s in the products they purchase regularly, whether it’s pet food, groceries, skincare products or supplements.

Yet, in an age of label-reading and ingredient-driven choices, the findings showed that aesthetic treatments, such as injectable frown line treatments, remain an area where familiarity often outweighs informed decision-making.

The survey, conducted by Talker Research on behalf of Revance, polled 2,000 U.S. adults aged 30–54 and found that 91% of respondents said they’re more ingredient-aware than ever before, yet fewer than half could name a single ingredient in their injectable frown line treatment.

According to the findings, this rise in ingredient awareness is being driven by a desire for better outcomes across multiple categories like skincare, supplements and hair care, with the majority of respondents saying they research ingredients to ensure a product works well (61%).

Others cited benefits like managing allergies (41%) and understanding product differences (36%).

Over half (51%) said their research before using certain products, treatments or ingredients had increased significantly in the last 12 months.

“It’s encouraging to see consumers becoming more thoughtful about the products they use,” said a spokesperson for Revance. “They’re doing their homework, asking better questions and expecting more information from brands. But this research shows there’s still a gap when it comes to aesthetic treatments.

AI usage may also be impacting this boom in product research, with 31% feeling it has already equipped them to make better product decisions with less laborious research.

Despite having this technology at our fingertips, the data shows that ingredient curiosity hasn’t fully extended to aesthetic treatments.

The results showed some significant misconceptions with 53% believing all injectable frown line treatments are “more or less the same” despite real differences in formulations.

The 2,000 respondents polled were all currently receiving frown line treatments or intended to in the next six months.

More from this section

+2

Yankees clinch MLB playoff berth with walk-off win over White Sox

+2

Loose moose told to Czech out of Austria

White House threatens mass firings as government shutdown looms

Thirty-six percent said they chose their current treatment because it was “the most obvious option,” while a similar number (32%) were unaware that alternative formulations even exist.

But that doesn't mean Americans aren't willing to switch it up when it comes to their loyalty. Thirty-one percent of those surveyed said they'd change an aesthetic product or treatment if it had an innovative formula.

“Americans have become increasingly focused on what goes into the products they use, especially in categories like beauty and wellness,” the spokesperson added. “We’d like to see that same curiosity extend to frown line treatments so that people feel informed and confident about the different formulations available to them.”

Survey methodology:

Talker Research surveyed 2,000 people ages 30-54 who get neurotoxin treatments or want to in the next six months; the survey was commissioned by Revance and administered and conducted online by Talker Research between Aug. 5 and Aug. 12, 2025.

We are sourcing from a non-probability frame and the two main sources we use are:

• Traditional online access panels — where respondents opt-in to take part in online market research for an incentive
• Programmatic — where respondents are online and are given the option to take part in a survey to receive a virtual incentive usually related to the online activity they are engaging in

Those who did not fit the specified sample were terminated from the survey. As the survey is fielded, dynamic online sampling is used, adjusting targeting to achieve the quotas specified as part of the sampling plan.

Regardless of which sources a respondent came from, they were directed to an Online Survey, where the survey was conducted in English; a link to the questionnaire can be shared upon request. Respondents were awarded points for completing the survey. These points have a small cash-equivalent monetary value.

Cells are only reported on for analysis if they have a minimum of 80 respondents, and statistical significance is calculated at the 95% level. Data is not weighted, but quotas and other parameters are put in place to reach the desired sample.

Interviews are excluded from the final analysis if they failed quality-checking measures. This includes:

• Speeders: Respondents who complete the survey in a time that is quicker than one-third of the median length of interview are disqualified as speeders
• Open ends: All verbatim responses (full open-ended questions as well as other please specify options) are checked for inappropriate or irrelevant text
• Bots: Captcha is enabled on surveys, which allows the research team to identify and disqualify bots
• Duplicates: Survey software has “deduping” based on digital fingerprinting, which ensures nobody is allowed to take the survey more than once

It is worth noting that this survey was only available to individuals with internet access, and the results may not be generalizable to those without internet access.