OVERVIEW
In a cross-BU project, we addressed customers' frequent request for a higher credit card limit.
Recognizing the discrepancy between customers' desired limit and what Nubank could safely offer, we crafted an easy, fast, and coherent experience of creating a Money Box and using its principal value as a guarantee in exchange for a credit card limit increase.
CONTEXT
Collateral with Money Boxes was a cross-BU project impacting the new savings product of Nubank (Money Boxes or Caixinhas) aiming to release a feature that gives customers the ability to create a Caixinha and use its principal value as a guarantee in exchange for a credit card limit increase.
About Money Boxes
Money Boxes (or Caixinhas) is a tool for users to save and invest money in an organized way, separating their savings into boxes with goals they create and personalize themselves.
The launch of Caixinhas was a success. After 2 months since we started the rollout, and not even 1 week after we reached 100% of our customers we had more than 1.7 million customers using the product and over 2.25 million Caixinhas created for different plans/objectives in a simple, intuitive and efficient way of saving money. And with that, more of Nubank's products were interested in having a collab with Money Boxes.
About Collateral
The Credit Card Collateral team was created to help Nubank customers increase their limits in alternative ways since the biggest pain point of our users is that they want to have more limit.
The team also knew that over 40% of Nubank's active credit card base (20 million customers) can be classified as Limit Constraint, which means that they spend more (both inside and outside Nubank) than the limit that Nubank gives them.
PREMISSES
With the numbers of Limit Constraints, it was clear to us that we had a great opportunity here.
And those people could benefit from an alternative to credit policies for limit increases, and therefore, increase or concentrate their spending with us.
- Target population: ~40% of active credit card base who are limit constraint;
- Main pain point: People want and/or need more limit and don't miss an opportunity to remind us of that;
- Narrative: Safe way to increase limits (users will not be in debt if they don't pay their credit card because their savings will cover the expenses);
- Side reasons to use: Make bigger purchases or concentrate spending on a single credit card;
- Business decision: start with Caixinhas asset Liquid RDB since it has liquid properties and partial operations are allowed.
My Design Process
1. deep dive
After understanding the 4 pillars of the collateral mechanic (hiring, usage, withdraw, seize) and prioritizing the one that would be the main focus in the MVP delivery (hiring), we wanted to explore different approaches for the experience.
Possible approaches
Since we had two teams in different BUs and with different goals and needs for this project, the first thing we did was to hold a workshop with the stakeholders to dig deep into the possibilities of making Liquid RDBs (the asset behind Caixinhas savings account) possible for being collateralized.
With all the thoughts written down, me and the CC designer saw 3 different paths the product could go:
1 - Specific Box Experience
Users can create a CC Box to be used specifically for Limit Increase - Only this specific template can be collateralized.
2 - Any Box Experience
Users can select any Money Box that was already created to increase their limit.
3 - Money Pool Experience
Users can input any amount of money available from inside the Boxes to be collateralized.
A user flow diagram for the hiring and post-hiring experience was drawn for these 3 options, as well as some sacrificial concepts wireframes so that the team could discuss open questions and further challenges of all approaches.
But, in between the meetings and discussions, we understood that both Credit Card and Money Boxes teams had different opinions about where the product should go and why, so after a quick sync, me and the CC Designer decided that we needed another workshop with the stakeholders, but this time for them to write down the pros and cons of each approach and to vote for them.
Having the result, we presented the whole scenario to the C Level and with them, we reached a conclusion: for the MVP we would have a single box experience where the user can create a new box from the CC flow that's always collateralizable, and after the MVP we would go with our second option (any box experience).
2. PROTOTYPE
For the hands-on part, me and the CC designer agreed to do some explorations apart before starting our work sessions together in order to diverge ideas. After that, we schedule 3 work sessions weekly for building the whole experience together, where at least once a week our content designer and our researcher would participate.
During the remaining time, we would be focused on refining what was said in our conversations, as well as aligning with stakeholders, doing design critiques, check-ins with the design system and legal team, and presenting to the respective teams what was being created.
After two weeks we had our final flow to be presented to our product review and after that, we move on to usability test preparation.
3. USABILITY TEST
With the help of our researcher, we chose to run an unmoderated usability test study using Maze due to the fast-paced rhythm that the project was needing and because our primary goal was to test only the usability and the understanding of the feature.
For the test, users had 5 missions to complete inside the app representing the main actions that compose the Collateral UX and evaluating how hard it was to complete those missions. Additionally, users were asked multiple-choice follow-up questions about Collateral mechanics and how the feature works, as well as one final open commentary field where they could express themselves about the product.
Sample:
- Group 1: with 35k users of "limit-constrained users" with active Caixinha
- Group 2: with 35k users without active Caixinhas.
Main findings
🟢 User experience behaves mostly as expected
Aside from the entry-point-related findings, no big issues were identified with the creating, hiring, withdrawing, and adding money flow - with expected issues with existing legacy screens.
🔴 Entry-point and awareness issues
Both tasks observing findability had results below expected. Users had trouble finding both the entry point for Collateral Hiring and also the entry points for the Caixinha management after hiring.
🟡 Misunderstanding of product rules
Even though the majority of users understood the product mechanics, we had a good chunk of users that either misunderstood the mechanics - although we also observed that after empirically experiencing the mechanic, user comprehension was significantly better - Seize rules were the most confusing.
🟡 Post-hiring findability issues
We also observed users struggling to find their way to the Caixinha management, even users who had already used Caixinhas before. Our concern here is to understand whether users will intuitively know where their redeemed money has gone, and if they will be bothered by having to redeem twice.
Next steps
- For the MVP there will be no changes in the experience already tested;
- The Caixinhas entry-point issue was reported to the Caixinhas forum and will be further discussed after the finalization of Nubank's wealth tab research (where Caixinhas is located);
- The Credit Card team will work on rethinking the entry-point and product awareness strategy considering usage feedback, contextualized alternatives, and review content on product onboarding separately from the Money Boxes team.
MVP Result
