Investor Membership
Investor Membership
Before designing the product, I had to rethink the study
Before designing the product, I had to rethink the study
Before designing the product, I had to rethink the study
I joined to design two membership concepts. Before getting into the screens, I looked at the research plan. One interview was meant to answer four different questions, so I started by revising the study
I joined to design two membership concepts. Before getting into the screens, I looked at the research plan. One interview was meant to answer four different questions, so I started by revising the study
I joined to design two membership concepts. Before getting into the screens, I looked at the research plan. One interview was meant to answer four different questions, so I started by revising the study
Brokerage · Product Design + Research · 2026
Brokerage · Product Design + Research · 2026
Brokerage · Product Design + Research · 2026
Role
Role
Product Designer
Product Designer
Timeframe
Timeframe
2 months
2 months
Collaboration
Collaboration
Product Manager, UX Manager, Compliance and product team
Product Manager, UX Manager, Compliance and product team
My contribution
My contribution
I found gaps in the research plan, rewrote it before recruitment and designed the screens the revised study needed
I found gaps in the research plan, rewrote it before recruitment and designed the screens the revised study needed
Problem
Problem
One interview was being asked to answer four different questions
One interview was being asked to answer four different questions
I revised the plan so interviews would focus on how customers understood the membership, while a survey would compare benefits and values. I also took the early screens to Compliance to check how we could explain the membership without encouraging customers to trade more. I used those constraints to develop the concepts for the revised study.
I revised the plan so interviews would focus on how customers understood the membership, while a survey would compare benefits and values. I also took the early screens to Compliance to check how we could explain the membership without encouraging customers to trade more. I used those constraints to develop the concepts for the revised study.
Reconstruction note
Reconstruction note
This case study is a portfolio reconstruction. All financial and commercial details are illustrative. I replaced or substantially changed the benefits, prices, values, membership names, eligibility rules and product language from the original work.
This case study is a portfolio reconstruction. All financial and commercial details are illustrative. I replaced or substantially changed the benefits, prices, values, membership names, eligibility rules and product language from the original work.
THE PROBLEM WITH REWARDS
THE PROBLEM WITH REWARDS
Too little or too much
Too little or too much
$10 might get a shrug. $2,000 probably would not. Give it to 100,000 customers, though, and it costs the company $200 million. The difficult part is finding an amount customers would notice and the business could afford.
$10 might get a shrug. $2,000 probably would not. Give it to 100,000 customers, though, and it costs the company $200 million. The difficult part is finding an amount customers would notice and the business could afford.
Try an amount below. It looks different once 100,000 people get it.
Try an amount below. It looks different once 100,000 people get it.
PROJECT BRIEF
BUSINESS GOAL
FIND THE REWARD AMOUNT THAT MOTIVATES CUSTOMERS WITHOUT EXHAUSING THE BUDGET
CHOOSE REWARD PER CUSTOMER
PROGRAM METRICS
COST
$0
CUSTOMERS
100,000
EVIDENCE
LIMITED
COMPANY VAULT
100%
PROJECT BRIEF
BUSINESS GOAL
FIND THE REWARD AMOUNT THAT MOTIVATES CUSTOMERS WITHOUT EXHAUSING THE BUDGET
CONSTRAINT
SMALL CHANGES BECOME MILLIONS AT SCALE
CHOOSE REWARD PER CUSTOMER
PROGRAM METRICS
COST
$0
CUSTOMERS
100,000
EVIDENCE
LIMITED
COMPANY VAULT
100%
PROJECT BRIEF
BUSINESS GOAL
FIND THE REWARD AMOUNT THAT MOTIVATES CUSTOMERS WITHOUT EXHAUSTING THE BUDGET
CHOOSE REWARD PER CUSTOMER
PROGRAM METRICS
COST
$0
CUSTOMERS
100,000
EVIDENCE
LIMITED
COMPANY VAULT
BUDGET REMAINING
100%
The figures are fictional and do not represent company data. The amounts are exaggerated, but the problem is real. Spending twice as much would not necessarily make the reward feel twice as valuable
The figures are fictional and do not represent company data. The amounts are exaggerated, but the problem is real. Spending twice as much would not necessarily make the reward feel twice as valuable
THE BRIEF
THE BRIEF
One study, four decisions
One study, four decisions
This reconstruction shows two membership versions: one with several levels and one with a simpler structure.
This reconstruction shows two membership versions: one with several levels and one with a simpler structure.
Lite
Stock fee discount
Options fee discount
FX fee discount
Lending share
Lite
Stock fee discount
Options fee discount
FX fee discount
Lending share
Lite
Stock fee discount
Options fee discount
FX fee discount
Lending share
Lite
Stock fee discount
Options fee discount
FX fee discount
Lending share
Lite
Stock fee discount
Options fee discount
FX fee discount
Lending share
The versions differed in their levels, eligibility rules and benefits, as well as how those benefits were explained.
The versions differed in their levels, eligibility rules and benefits, as well as how those benefits were explained.
The research was expected to answer four questions:
The research was expected to answer four questions:
Which structure was easier to understand?
Which benefits mattered most?
Which differences between levels were noticeable?
Did customers understand how the membership worked?
Which structure was easier to understand?
Which benefits mattered most?
Which differences between levels were noticeable?
Did customers understand how the membership worked?
WHAT I CHANGED
What belonged in the interview?
What belonged in the interview?
I kept questions about the membership’s structure and meaning in the interviews. To compare benefits and values across a larger group, I added a survey.
I kept questions about the membership’s structure and meaning in the interviews. To compare benefits and values across a larger group, I added a survey.
Split qual from quant
One extended interview was expected to answer all four questions.
Interviews could show whether customers understood the membership and how they interpreted it. They could not reliably compare benefit preferences or offer levels across customers.
My decision
Keep structure and comprehension in interviews. Move benefit ranking and offer-level evaluation into a quantitative survey.
Semi-structured interview
Structure
Meaning
Comprehension
How it works
Benefits
What matters most
Different values
Where answers change
Decision 1 of 6
Split qual from quant
One extended interview was expected to answer all four questions.
Interviews could show whether customers understood the membership and how they interpreted it. They could not reliably compare benefit preferences or offer levels across customers.
My decision
Keep structure and comprehension in interviews. Move benefit ranking and offer-level evaluation into a quantitative survey.
Semi-structured interview
Structure
Meaning
Comprehension
How it works
Benefits
What matters most
Different values
Where answers change
Decision 1 of 6
Split qual from quant
The plan put all four questions into one extended interview.
Interviews could show whether people understood the membership and how they interpreted it. The planned interviews wouldn’t give us a reliable comparison of preferred benefits or reactions to different values across a larger group.
My decision
Keep questions about structure and understanding in the interviews. Use a survey to compare benefits and values.
Decision 1 of 6
Semi-structured interview
Structure
Meaning
Comprehension
How it works
Benefits
What matters most
Different values
Where answers change
WHAT WE COULD CHANGE
WHAT WE COULD CHANGE
Three ways to fix the study
Three ways to fix the study
I probably couldn't change everything, so I prepared three options: a few small fixes, separate interviews and a survey, or a larger study.
I probably couldn't change everything, so I prepared three options: a few small fixes, separate interviews and a survey, or a larger study.
Interview
1
2
3
4
5
Semi-structured interview
Both concepts in one interview
Benefit ranking · conversation
Offer levels · conversation
One screen set · mixed fidelity
Survey
1
-
Synthesis
1
Pattern-based synthesis
Safeguards
1
Presentation order split
Interview
1
2
3
4
5
Semi-structured
Both concepts in one interview
Benefit ranking · conversation
Offer levels · conversation
One screen set · mixed fidelity
Survey
1
-
Synthesis
1
Pattern-based synthesis
Safeguards
1
Presentation order split
Interview
1
2
3
4
5
Semi-structured interview
Both concepts in one interview
Benefit ranking · conversation
Offer levels · conversation
One screen set · mixed fidelity
Survey
1
-
Synthesis
1
Interview pattern board
Safeguards
1
Presentation order split
I changed the research categories, labels and details shown here. They explain my decisions without reproducing an internal document
The version we chose
The version we chose
We chose to split qualitative and quantitative research. Interviews would focus on what customers thought the membership meant and whether they understood how it worked. A short survey would compare benefits and different values.
FIRST CONCEPT
The program structure
The program structure
The page had to explain the levels, qualification rules and differences in benefits. It couldn't make the next level feel like a reason to trade more.
The page had to explain the levels, qualification rules and differences in benefits. It couldn't make the next level feel like a reason to trade more.
I kept both versions visually consistent. Otherwise, I wouldn't know whether people preferred the structure or simply the way one screen looked.
I kept both versions visually consistent. Otherwise, I wouldn't know whether people preferred the structure or simply the way one screen looked.
Progressive
Simplified
Progressive
Simplified
Progressive
Simplified
Illustrative portfolio reconstruction. Membership names, eligibility thresholds, fees, rewards and savings are fictional and do not represent the original program
Illustrative portfolio reconstruction. Membership names, eligibility thresholds, fees, rewards and savings are fictional and do not represent the original program
WHERE THE UI COULD GO WRONG
No nudging
No nudging
I reviewed the concepts with Compliance. I kept the information customers needed and removed wording that made the next level sound like a target.
I reviewed the concepts with Compliance. I kept the information customers needed and removed wording that made the next level sound like a target.
Show the status without selling the next level
Show the status without selling the next level
Customers still needed to know their current status. I removed language suggesting they should try to reach the next one.
Customers still needed to know their current status. I removed language suggesting they should try to reach the next one.
Do not show future savings as if they had already happened
Do not show future savings as if they had already happened
The first concept projected current savings into the future. That assumed the customer would keep behaving in the same way and the membership wouldn't change. Quite a lot of assumptions for one number in a header.
The first concept projected current savings into the future. That assumed the customer would keep behaving in the same way and the membership wouldn't change. Quite a lot of assumptions for one number in a header.
SECOND CONCEPT
A better rate. Compared with what?
A better rate. Compared with what?
The first version assumed customers knew what they were paying today. Without that comparison, a $0.005 stock fee or a 0.40% FX fee could mean very little. I added standard pricing alongside the membership rates.
The first version assumed customers knew what they were paying today. Without that comparison, a $0.005 stock fee or a 0.40% FX fee could mean very little. I added standard pricing alongside the membership rates.
Progressive
Simplified
Progressive
Simplified
Progressive
Simplified
Illustrative portfolio reconstruction. Membership names, eligibility thresholds, fees, rewards and savings have been fictionalised and do not represent the original program
Illustrative portfolio reconstruction. Membership names, eligibility thresholds, fees, rewards and savings have been fictionalised and do not represent the original program
With standard pricing alongside the membership rates, customers could see what they were comparing. But they still had to work through several rows and columns to find the difference.
With standard pricing alongside the membership rates, customers could see what they were comparing. But they still had to work through several rows and columns to find the difference.
WHAT I ENDED UP WITH
Put the savings first
Put the savings first
I already had the standard rate and the customer’s current rate, so I could show the difference directly. I moved the comparison into the membership header and kept the levels and qualification rules below, where customers could check the details.
I already had the standard rate and the customer’s current rate, so I could show the difference directly. I moved the comparison into the membership header and kept the levels and qualification rules below, where customers could check the details.
Progressive
Simplified
Progressive
Simplified
Progressive
Simplified
Illustrative portfolio reconstruction. Membership names, eligibility thresholds, fees, rewards and savings have been fictionalised and do not represent the original program
Illustrative portfolio reconstruction. Membership names, eligibility thresholds, fees, rewards and savings have been fictionalised and do not represent the original program
Put the comparison next to the rate
Put the comparison next to the rate
Previously, customers had to find two values in the table and work out the difference. Putting them next to each other removed that extra step.
Previously, customers had to find two values in the table and work out the difference. Putting them next to each other removed that extra step.
Show what customers had already saved
Show what customers had already saved
Instead of estimating future savings, I used past activity to show what the customer had already saved. The breakdown showed where the total came from.
Instead of estimating future savings, I used past activity to show what the customer had already saved. The breakdown showed where the total came from.
Structure below the benefits
Structure below the benefits
Customers still needed to know their level and how qualification worked. I moved that information below their current benefits, so they saw what they were getting.
Customers still needed to know their level and how qualification worked. I moved that information below their current benefits, so they saw what they were getting.
ONE LOOSE END
Anyone remember the vision concept?
Anyone remember the vision concept?
The vision concept was meant to introduce the membership before customers saw all the prices and rules. The realistic prototype would then show how it could work in use.
Illustrative portfolio reconstruction. Membership names, eligibility thresholds, fees, rewards and savings have been fictionalised and do not represent the original program
Illustrative portfolio reconstruction. Membership names, eligibility thresholds, fees, rewards and savings have been fictionalised and do not represent the original program
WHERE I LEFT IT
Ready to test
Ready to test
My part ended before the study ran. The interviews, survey, vision concept and realistic prototype were ready for testing. Three limitations remained.
My part ended before the study ran. The interviews, survey, vision concept and realistic prototype were ready for testing. Three limitations remained.
New customers had no savings history
New customers had no savings history
New customers had no savings history
Showing past value would work for existing members with enough account history. It wouldn't work for new customers. They would need a different concept explaining what they could get at the start.
Showing past value would work for existing members with enough account history. It wouldn't work for new customers. They would need a different concept explaining what they could get at the start.
What the survey couldn’t tell us
What the survey couldn’t tell us
What the survey couldn’t tell us
The survey could show which benefits customers preferred and whether stronger offers changed their stated interest. It couldn't tell us whether a particular rate would change their behaviour. That needed evidence from a live program.
The survey could show which benefits customers preferred and whether stronger offers changed their stated interest. It couldn't tell us whether a particular rate would change their behaviour. That needed evidence from a live program.
Seeing one concept before the other
Seeing one concept before the other
Seeing one concept before the other
Participants would see the vision concept before the realistic prototype. That meant their reaction to the prototype would already be influenced by the first concept.
Participants would see the vision concept before the realistic prototype. That meant their reaction to the prototype would already be influenced by the first concept.
