1. Overview
As the Lead Product Designer, I applied best practices and customer insights from a related project to iterate on a single step in a larger E2E financing application flow, creating multiple variants for live a AB test.
The timeline for my iterations was a single day, and I was able to present 5 options to my 3-in-a-box and Legal teams, getting buy-in to present 3 of the options to the external bank partner, then moving into live AB experimentation.
Role
Lead Product Designer
Collaborators
Product Managers; Content Designer; Engineering; Legal & Compliance
Methodologies
UX
UI
Content
Heuristic Analysis
Live Experimentation
Stakeholder Buy-in
Company
Snap Finance is a decade-old BNPL lease-to-own and loan financing company serving more than 3M customers, with a focus on helping consumers who do not qualify for traditional financing afford larger living expenses and durable goods. In 2024, Snap financed more than $1B, with a revenue of nearly $250M.
Challenge
After being approved for loan financing, the customer needs to choose the type of payment plan they want to be on – automatic or manual – before signing their agreement and purchasing the item.
The external bank partner had concerns with the high number of "manual payment selections and subsequent first payment default rates.
Requirements & Goals
The goal was to drive a higher number of “automatic payment” selections and increase customer decision confidence in order to decrease payment plan changes and first payment default, but with a vague legal constraint to have the automatic and manual options “appear equal.”
Key Metrics
+6%
Automatic payment selection
increase
+8%
Predicted net revenue
increase
-38%
Payment plan change
decrease
-20%
First payment default
decrease
2. Design Explorations
Existing Screen Pain Points
I identified a few key issues with the legacy screen that could be improved for significant impact on comprehension
The content repeats itself 4 times before getting into the interaction, which trains customers to ignore content
There is no context or hierarchy for how the payment options are organized and presented
A hypothesis that the "Pay manually later" option is too enticing, and does not give the customer proper awareness of their increased responsiblities with this selection
Learnings from a usability session I conducted for a previous, similar project were leveraged
This is 1 of 3 payment prompts across the E2E flow, and customers had told me they would use the same payment method for all 3 prompts, treating this all as a "single purchase"
This contradicts the higher live selection of "pay manually later," leading me to believe that the label is too enticing, and that we could shift the focus to align with their mental model of using the same payment method throughout
Repetitive content overload
Lack of hierarchy, organization, and context
"Pay later" label too enticing
The Challenge
How might we organize the options on this step to ensure customer comprehension of their increased responsibility when choosing “manual,” while trying to encourage them to choose “automatic” without being manipulative?
The 5 Initial Options
3. Live Experimentation Outcomes
Opt. A – Accordions
First Payment Default
Rates
-6.5%
Automatic Payments
-5.8%
Manual Payments
Automatic Payment
Selection Rates
-27.0%
Payment Plan Change Rates
-36.7%
Predicted Net Revenue
+3.2%
Opt. B – Focused
First Payment Default
Rates
-15.6%
Automatic Payments
-20.0%
Manual Payments
Automatic Payment
Selection Rates
+5.7%
Payment Plan Change Rates
-38.4%
Predicted Net Revenue
+7.6%
Opt. C – Tabs
First Payment Default
Rates
+1.3%
Automatic Payments
+9.1%
Manual Payments
Automatic Payment
Selection Rates
+2.4%
Payment Plan Change Rates
-82.7%
Predicted Net Revenue
-2.2%
4. Takeaways
Intentional friction
I.e. accordions, tabs, groupings – can lead customers to spend more time evaluating the options
Translations of legal constraints
L&C constraints are not always set in stone, maybe more like clay
Asking L&C clarifying questions and providing customer data can lead to a more customer-centric solution balanced with legal concerns
Experience and best practices
Framing of customer choices has a major impact on decision making
Sometimes groundbreaking interaction design is not needed