ADAM DUSTAN

PRODUCT DESIGNER & PROBLEM SOLVER

ADAM DUSTAN

PRODUCT DESIGNER & PROBLEM SOLVER

Increasing Transparency, Decreasing First Payment Default

A quick-turnaround design exploration, yielding multiple viable solutions that were AB tested to increase decision confidence for the customer, address compliance issues, decrease first payment defaults by 15.6-20%, and increase predicted net revenue by 7.6%.

Role

Lead Product Designer

Methodologies

UX & UI Design; Heuristic Analysis; Live Experimentation; Content Design; Stakeholder Buy-in

What to Expect

  1. Challenge

  2. Goals

  3. By The Numbers

  4. Design Exploration

  5. Live Experimentation & Learnings

Challenge

After being approved for loan financing with Snap Finance, 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.

There were very strict compliance regulations in place for the presentation of these choices, which the old experiences did not exactly meet.

Customers who chose manual payments also tended to have a higher rate of first payment default, which negatively affected both corporate revenue and the customer’s credit.

A new bank financier was about to partner with Snap, but had issue with this part of the flow, so I was tasked with coming up with some new options.

Goals

  • Ensure compliance & regulations are followed

    • Automatic and manual options cannot seem “favored” in their presentation

    • Options must be presented directly to customer on their device, not on the merchant device

  • Drive a higher number of “automatic payment” selections, which should result in lower first payment default rates overall

  • Increase customer comprehension and decision confidence in order to decrease the amount of post-flow payment plan changes

    • Requires calling into Call Center, costing the company money and customer frustration

By the Numbers

-15.6%

Decrease in First Payment Defaults (automatic)

-20.0%

Decrease in First Payment Defaults (manual)

+7.6%

Increase in Predicted 


Net Revenue

5

Design Solutions
Presented

3

Design Solutions
Tested

Design Exploration

The existing customer-facing payment selection screen had it’s share of problems, including information overload and lack of context or education regarding the options.

In usability session for another project, customers told us they generally would just use the same payment method for all 3 payment prompts throughout the flow (I led another initiative to streamline this), treating this all as a “single purchase.” But IRL, they were choosing “Pay manually later” because it seemed easier and more flexible, unfortunately resulting in higher rates of missed payments.

Starting with Pencil and Paper
As a quick turnaround project, I shared 5 solutions with the team the next day, and we narrowed it down to 3 to experiment with.
It was a rewarding measure of success to see the team debate so strongly between the 3 viable solutions.
One design goal I kept in mind was “transparency” – we wanted to ensure the customer understood their increased responsibility when choosing “manual,” while trying to encourage them to choose “automatic” without being manipulative.

The 5 Initial Options
In addition to the regular 3-in-a-box teammates (design, product, engineering), we brought in Legal for the initial review to make sure we were being compliant before moving forward.
Most of my options share a pattern I had been introducing throughout the E2E experience – showing additional contextual information upon selection of a card.

Opt A: Accordions
This option was selected for live experimentation
  • Focus on payment type (automatic vs “pay by mail or phone”)
  • Auto-expanded and preselected “automatic payments” section
Opt A: Accordions
This option was selected for live experimentation
  • Focus on payment type (automatic vs “pay by mail or phone”)
  • Auto-expanded and preselected “automatic payments” section

Opt B: Focused
This option was selected for live experimentation
  • Flips primary focus from payment type (automatic vs manual) to the actual payment method
    • Payment type is secondary via the TAG inside the card
  • Leverages the concept of “social proof
  • I felt this was the most interesting and strongest option
Opt B: Focused
This option was selected for live experimentation
  • Flips primary focus from payment type (automatic vs manual) to the actual payment method
    • Payment type is secondary via the TAG inside the card
  • Leverages the concept of “social proof”
  • I felt this was the most interesting and strongest option

Opt C: Tabs
This option was selected for live experimentation
  • Main focus is literal payment type (automatic vs manual)
  • Pre-selecting existing payment method was debated with Legal, eventually being allowed
    • Based on qual data that customers view the whole process as a “single transaction” and state they would use the same payment method for each step
Opt C: Tabs
This option was selected for live experimentation
  • Main focus is literal payment type (automatic vs manual)
  • Pre-selecting existing payment method was debated with Legal, eventually being allowed
    • Based on qual data that customers view the whole process as a “single transaction” and state they would use the same payment method for each step

Opt D: Confirmation Sheet
This option was cut prior to testing
  • Contextual EDU messaging of “manual” shown as a separate step
  • Manual payments option is too minimized (compliance issue)
  • Seemed a bit cumbersome with unclear interactions
Opt D: Confirmation Sheet
This option was cut prior to testing
  • Contextual EDU messaging of “manual” shown as a separate step
  • Manual payments option is too minimized (compliance issue)
  • Seemed a bit cumbersome with unclear interactions

Opt E: Everything Bagel
This option was cut prior to testing
  • A straightforward list-based approach where everything is shown at once
  • Conservative, safe approach to cover all the bases
    • Showing an approach like this tends to make the other options appear stronger
Opt E: Everything Bagel
This option was cut prior to testing
  • A straightforward list-based approach where everything is shown at once
  • Conservative, safe approach to cover all the bases
    • Showing an approach like this tends to make the other options appear stronger

Live Experimentation & Learnings

With 3 options approved by Legal and the team split over which would perform best, the true decision maker would be the customer via live AB testing.

Based on the data, the decision was made to push the “Focused” option to 100%.

The decrease in first payment default rates for the same plan type was an unexpected positive for the customer and the business

Hypotheses
  • Adding friction by interacting with the accordions, tabs, or groupings caused customers to pause and evaluate the choices more so than when presented with a straight list

  • Social proof seemed reassuring to the customer

  • Focus on the payment method (bank) over type (auto vs manual) seemed to have made the choices easier

  • Describing the manual payment method (via phone or mail) was less enticing than “pay later”

First Payment Default Rates (over control)

-6.5%

Automatic Payments

-5.8%

Manual Payments

-15.6%

Automatic Payments

-20.0%

Manual Payments

+1.3%

Automatic Payments

+9.1%

Manual Payments

Predicted Net Revenue (over control)

+3.2%

+7.6%

-2.2%

Automatic Payment Selection Rates (over control)

-27.0%

+5.7%

+2.4%

Payment Plan Change Rates (over control)

-36.7%

-38.4%

-82.7%