Background

The challenge

Improve first impression and motivation

Supporting data

Learnings from the past

To rethink this screen, I looked at earlier learnings across growth work. Prior value prop research showed that users responded most strongly to concrete credit improvement outcomes and affordability / transparency cues, while testimonial email experiments (+23.5% conversion lifted) suggested that social proof could also be motivating.

Testimonial-led concept

The past testimonial email experiments (+23.5% conversion lifted) suggested that social proof motivates users to get start.  Real-user outcomes could be an effective way to re-engage hesitant users, so I explored whether that same idea could work much earlier in the funnel.

I tested concepts that surfaced relatable credit-building progress directly on the first screen, using short, digestible social proof moments such as:

• users reaching score milestones
• users moving from the 500s or 400s into the 600s
• users getting closer to goals like qualifying for a first car
  

Value-proposition-led concept

A second direction focused on the clearest-performing messages from prior value prop testing. Internal research showed that users responded most strongly to:

• credible credit improvement claims such as +86 pts in one year or +25 pts in one month
  
• affordability cues such as plans start at $5/month
  
• product utility signals such as up to a $3,500 tradeline
  
• transparency and low-risk messaging such as no credit check, no hidden fees, and no interest
  

Based on that, I explored concepts that made those outcomes visible immediately on the first screen. Instead of asking users to trust the brand first a

nd understand the product later, these explorations tried to communicate the offer within seconds.

Reduce consideration at payment

Supporting data

By the time users reached payment, many were still not fully ready to commit. We saw clear signs of reconsideration in the funnel:





Together, these behaviors suggested that payment was not just a transactional step, but a high-friction decision moment where users were still evaluating which plan was right, whether the higher tier was worth it, and what they were actually paying for.

Past design

The old design was optimized for transaction, not decision confidence. It asked users to pay without doing enough to reinforce plan value at the moment of commitment.

Clarify plan choice before payment

A distinctive part of this design was that plan options were not static — they were intentionally scoped based on the user’s current selection. I used checkout as a controlled upgrade moment, not a second full comparison page.

That meant:

• Basic → can move to Premium or Ultimate
  
• Premium → can move to Ultimate
  
• Ultimate → no lower-tier options shown
  

This was a strategic constraint. It gave users room to upgrade when they were still reconsidering, while protecting the flow from lower-value backtracking or downgrade behavior.

Bringing plan detail into checkout

Even after selecting a plan, users still needed reassurance at checkout.

To solve this, I brought plan detail directly into the payment experience. I added an in-context entry point that allowed users to review what was included in their selected plan without leaving checkout. This kept value explanation close to the moment of purchase and reduced the need to backtrack to the previous screen.

The goal was to make payment feel less like a blind commitment and more like a supported final decision.

Reduce perceived risk and building trust

The challenge

What did i do? 

I explored a set of lightweight interventions designed to make the funnel feel safer, more credible, and easier to commit to. Rather than relying on one large redesign, I introduced reassurance in context—through price framing, money-back guarantees, ratings and credibility signals, live support for indecisive users, and more trust-building loading states.

Together, these explorations extended the same growth principle across the journey: design should not only explain value, but also reduce the emotional cost of saying yes.

Lower the psychological cost of commitment

For some users, hesitation at this stage came less from value confusion and more from the emotional weight of committing to a paid plan.

I explored two lightweight interventions to reduce that friction:

• Daily price framing to make higher-tier pricing feel smaller and easier to process
  
• A 45-day money-back guarantee to reduce fear of regret and make plan selection feel safer

These interventions were intentionally small, but they addressed an important part of conversion behavior: users don’t just evaluate value rationally — they also evaluate how risky and emotionally costly the decision feels.

Offer support when indecision persists

Not all hesitation could be solved through clearer pricing or stronger value framing alone. For users who kept switching between plans, repeated comparison behavior became a signal that they might need more direct support before committing.

To address that, I explored surfacing a live chat entry point when users showed ongoing indecision in plan selection. Rather than treating repeated switching as simple friction, I framed it as a moment where a more human layer of help could reduce uncertainty.

Reinforce trust during waiting moments

Waiting states were another place where users could lose confidence. 

To make these moments feel less uncertain, I explored a new set of loading and verification screens that used lightweight trust-building cues while users waited.

The goal was to turn waiting from a dead space into a supportive part of the funnel. Even when users could not take action, the experience could still reinforce confidence and reduce the anxiety that often comes with high-friction verification steps.

Results, reflection & looking ahead

Impact