Enhancing Zopa's Smart Savings Hub by improving the open-a-pot flow, increasing visibility of pot types, reducing hesitation, and guiding customers toward better savings decisions.
As part of a required brand refresh, we proposed updating the "Open a Pot" flow in Zopa's Smart Savings Hub (SSH). The goal was to create a revised entry point for opening pots across all types, Access, Boosted, and ISA, within the SSH dashboard header.
The feature focused on enhancing the onboarding experience and increasing our opportunity to market pot types to customers. By improving this flow, we aimed to encourage app engagement, cross-sell to other Zopa products, and increase stickiness of funds.
Before jumping into solutions, I mapped out the team's knowns and unknowns to understand where we had confidence and where assumptions needed validation.
"It's not about comparing pots for me, it's about the nature of what I need a pot for."
^ this customer quote became our moment of opportunity 💡We gathered qualitative feedback from existing customers that revealed several behavioural patterns around how they approach savings pots. These insights shaped our understanding of the barriers we needed to address.
Customers expressed confusion about the process of opening a new pot. The interface didn't feel intuitive or clear, leading to hesitation about what happens when they open one.
Customers defaulted to "easy access" pots out of familiarity, "I've always done that." Habitual choices meant they might miss more beneficial options like boosted pots.
Users expressed fear of committing to longer-term options, "I'm scared to put it in for a longer time in case something happens and I need to access it." A trust issue at its core.
Customers admitted to ignoring pop-ups and instructional text, suggesting these prompts were either not engaging enough or perceived as irrelevant.
Towards the end of feedback, users showed awareness of features they weren't using, "Maybe it should be something I should look at and use." A willingness to explore, if prompted effectively.
The current customer journey for opening savings pots lacked visibility, clarity, and guidance, leading to suboptimal engagement with long-term savings options, particularly boosted pots. Although the open pot flow was among the top user flows, a significant number of customers did not explore or utilise boosted pots effectively.
Data showed that only a small fraction of customers who open boosted pots do so after their initial account setup, suggesting limited awareness or understanding. Customer feedback further highlighted that users feel uncertain and hesitant, defaulting to "easy access" options out of fear or restricted access to funds and a lack of clear information about the benefits of longer-term savings.
Customer problem: Our current open-a-pot flow restricts customers' exposure and awareness of other pot types. This means they aren't always saving in a maximally efficient way to meet their savings goals.
Business problem: We believe by enhancing our open-a-pot flow we can increase app engagement, cross-sell, and stickiness of funds.
^ two sides of the same coin 🪙To close the gaps in our understanding, I proposed two complementary research methods, a quantitative survey and qualitative usability reviews.
We designed an 8-question survey targeting customers who create boosted pots and give notice within 1 minute. The goal was to understand behaviours at scale, what makes customers give notice, what's missing from boosted pots, and how useful they find them.
Several issues had been highlighted, declining use of boosted pots, customer uncertainty, and a lack of awareness about different pot options. We needed to understand the "why" behind these behaviours through direct observation and testing.
The first study focused on the existing Smart Savings Hub experience. Across sessions, three themes emerged consistently.
The two most important factors when comparing pots were interest rates and accessibility. Participants also flagged notice periods, tax implications, and fees as important considerations.
A recurring pain point was that comparing pot types was not straightforward. The interaction cost was high, users had to enter and exit "Add a pot" repeatedly for each pot type, making side-by-side evaluation impossible.
Participants were divided on the multiple "Add Pot" buttons per category. Some valued the directness; others found it confusing and wanted a single entry point to simplify the flow.
Several participants were unclear on what "boosted pots" or "access pots" actually meant. The distinction between ISAs and other savings products was also a frequent source of confusion.
The second study looked at the onboarding flow specifically, how new customers first encounter and navigate pot types. Two clear themes shaped our direction.
Many participants were unsure about the distinction between Smart Saver, Boosted, and Access ISA pots. They also struggled to understand when notice periods start and how they affect access in emergencies, clearer, more contextual messaging was needed.
Participants wanted real-life use-case examples for each pot type (e.g. emergency fund, holiday savings). Many also requested interactive tools, such as interest calculators, and felt they'd benefit from structured nudges to help them choose the right pot for their goals.
Users preferred a guided experience that helps them understand pot types before committing, rather than being dropped into multiple "Add pot" buttons.
When choosing a savings pot, the two most important factors were interest rate and how easily they could access their funds.
Awareness was lower than expected, many customers didn't realise their account included a boosted pot option, suggesting a significant discoverability problem.
Before moving into ideation, I wanted to temperature check our direction against what the research was telling us. We had an initial ask from the business, but the data was nudging us somewhere slightly bigger.
We can do this... but if we really want to move the needle and better support customers, we should consider...
^ the moment we reframed the brief 🔄Create a single open pot entry → categorisation page
Based on our research, I created a persona to anchor the team's decisions and keep customer needs front and centre throughout the design process.
A busy working professional with a stable income, looking to manage her savings more effectively. Comfortable with digital platforms but easily confused by financial jargon. She knows what she wants to save for, she just needs help figuring out how.
From our research and persona work, I established five design principles that would guide every design decision throughout the project.
Design for maximum clarity, minimising cognitive load. Users appreciate a visually organised interface but struggle with complex financial terminology.
Provide helpful, just-in-time guidance to aid decision-making without overwhelming users. Sarah needs support at specific points like comparing pots.
Personalise the experience based on user goals and preferences. Sarah wants to feel confident she's selecting the right pot for her unique financial goals.
Ensure transparency in how products work and provide clear explanations to build user confidence. Unclear terms can undermine trust.
Introduce complexity progressively, showing more detailed information only as users need it. Sarah doesn't need all the details up front.
With our research synthesised and Sarah's needs clearly defined, I facilitated a collaborative ideation workshop with the wider product team, product managers, engineers, and a compliance representative. The goal was to use structured problem framing to move from "what we learned" to "what we might do about it."
The workshop pre-read included our customer persona, usability testing clips, and design principles, so everyone arrived with shared context and genuine empathy for our users rather than assumptions. I used 5 Point of View (POV) statements as prompts, each grounded in the research, to anchor discussion and ensure we were solving real problems.
"Sarah, a new user, needs clear and straightforward definitions of savings pots because confusing terminology makes it difficult for her to choose the right option for her financial goals."
How might we provide clear, easy-to-understand explanations for each savings pot type to help Sarah make an informed decision?
How might we make Sarah aware that we offer multiple pot types throughout her customer lifecycle with us?
"Sarah struggles to compare pots side by side and is unsure which option is best suited to her goals."
How might we create a visual breakdown of each pot's key features, such as interest rates, tax implications, and accessibility, to simplify decision-making for Sarah?
"Sarah, who is unsure of her savings choices, needs personalised guidance to select the right pot because she lacks confidence in her decisions without clear recommendations tailored to her goals."
How might we offer personalised recommendations to Sarah based on her savings goals and preferences to help her feel more confident in her decision?
How might we introduce real-money examples or savings projections to show Sarah the potential benefits of different pots?
"Sarah, a customer with specific financial goals, needs personalised recommendations for savings pots based on her goals because she is unsure which pots best suit her needs or short-term access versus long-term growth."
How might we create an experience which matches Sarah's goals and timeline to the right savings pot?
"Sarah, a customer new to the Smart Savings Hub, isn't aware of what pots are on offer. She might also be reluctant to explore some of the other pot options even though they might be better suited to her savings needs."
How might we create an experience that allows new customers to learn about our pots?
How might we create an experience that encourages new customers to open a pot?
With the five POV statements defined, I turned them into the backbone of a cross-functional ideation workshop. I brought together product managers, engineers, and a compliance representative, people who don't always get a structured opportunity to contribute to the design process, and gave everyone the same starting point: real customer voices, shared context, and a clear problem to solve.
To make sure the session was productive rather than chaotic, I sent a pre-read the day before. It walked the team through the persona, key research findings, and the design principles we'd established, so nobody was arriving cold. The agenda below reflects how I structured the session to move from empathy to ideation to prioritisation within the hour.
Ahead of the workshop, here's some context on the various problems we're looking to solve, I'm not looking for you to draw anything (unless you really want to!), but I am interested in your ideas on how we might solve the problems we've heard from our customers in usability testing and a survey.
With the POV statements as prompts, each team member generated ideas independently on sticky notes before we discussed, clustered, and debated as a group. Here's a sample of the ideas that came out of the session for POV 1, the pattern repeated across all five challenges.
After generating ideas across all 5 HMW challenges, we ran a prioritisation exercise together. Each idea was placed into one of four buckets, giving the team a shared, transparent view of what we'd tackle for MVP and what would be revisited or parked.
I started with lo-fi wireframes to explore the information architecture before committing to visual design. The key question was how to structure the progressive levels of detail, a top-level categorisation view, a mid-level pot overview, and a drill-down for sub-types like specific Boosted Pot terms or ISA options. Working at low fidelity let us move fast and pressure-test the flow logic without getting distracted by aesthetics.
With the wireframes validated, I moved the three most promising approaches into mid-fidelity designs and put them in front of real customers. The scenario framed participants as someone looking to allocate savings across different pot types, and asked them to review all three designs and decide which best helped them compare options and make a confident choice.
Participants were given 8 verbal tasks across the session. The questions were structured to move from first impressions through to comparative judgement and confidence, giving us both attitudinal and evaluative signal.
Take a few minutes to review the designs. Tell us what you understand from what you're seeing, your first impressions and what you're most drawn to.
Which design do you prefer for comparing the savings pots, and why?
Which design allows you to understand the key differences between the savings pots, access pots, notice pots, ISA pots?
Are there any elements which help you compare the pots easily?
Which design makes you feel more confident about making an informed decision?
After reviewing all three designs, which one would you choose if you were actually comparing savings pots today?
Is there anything in particular across all 3 designs that you feel were more visible or explained better in one design than the others?
Would you change anything? Or order anything differently? Is there anything missing?
The session surfaced three clear signals that directly shaped the direction we took into high-fidelity design.
Emphasising the rate upfront generated the strongest positive response. Customers used it as their primary filter, product names like "Boosted Pot" meant little on their own, but a number gave them immediate traction.
Participants positively called out the short suitability line (e.g. "Suitable for longer-term saving goals and planned spends") as a key signal for picking the right pot, it reduced second-guessing without adding length.
Participants consistently preferred bullet-point benefit lists over descriptive paragraph copy. Scanning a list made side-by-side comparison feel effortless in a way prose couldn't match.
Testing confirmed what worked, but there were still open questions around how to structure the full categorisation experience. I explored three distinct directions, each a different answer to the tension between information density, scroll depth, and customer intent.
Surface every pot type as a full card with rate, suitability copy, and bullet benefits on the main screen. Variant 1A stripped back the benefits to just rate and suitability, reducing scroll depth while keeping the key decision signals visible. Both suffered from the same core problem: customers would need to scroll up and down continuously to compare pots, and the 3rd and 4th card falling below the fold was a meaningful risk, especially on smaller devices.
Rather than listing pot types, what if we led with customer intent? Instead of "Access pot / Boosted pot / ISA pot", the entry point becomes "Easy access to savings / Maximise my interest / Tax free savings", letting customers self-select based on their goal, then routing them to the relevant products. This directly addressed our research finding that customers struggle to pick the right pot even when they know what they want financially. The approach also introduced conditional logic: customers who already have a Regular Saver would have that card removed entirely, reducing noise.
The honest question this direction raised: do we even need a full categorisation page, or just a bottom sheet at the right moment?
Keep intent-based groupings and surface the interest rate alongside a single suitability line, but drop the bullet benefits from the main view. Benefits move to the drill-down sheet (Level 2), which customers reach with one tap. This resolves the scroll problem from Direction 1, preserves the rate-first clarity customers responded to in testing, and uses progressive disclosure to keep the entry point lightweight without hiding useful information. Variant 3A refines 3 further, tightening the layout and confirming that rate + suitability alone gives customers enough to move forward with confidence.
With Direction 3 confirmed, I moved into production-ready designs. The final experience uses intent-based groupings, Easy-access savings and Longer-term savings, with rate and a suitability line per pot. Tapping any row opens a focused detail sheet. Select a pot below to explore the flow.
The categorisation screen groups pots by customer intent, Easy-access and Longer-term, rather than product taxonomy. Each row leads to a focused detail sheet with the full benefit set and a single CTA, keeping the entry view clean while ensuring every piece of information customers said they needed is one tap away.
We defined four key metrics ahead of launch to measure whether the redesign was genuinely moving the needle, not just on surface-level engagement, but on the behaviours that indicate customers are making better, more confident savings decisions.
The metric we were most proud of wasn't the conversion uplift, it was the shift in which pots customers were choosing. More customers moved toward higher-rate options they previously hadn't considered. That felt like a real signal that we'd made the right call in expanding the brief.
^ better decisions, not just more decisions ✨The initial ask was to create a single open pot entry leading to a categorisation page. But research showed us that if we really wanted to move the needle and better support customers, we needed to think much bigger, rethinking how we educate, guide, and build confidence throughout the entire pot selection journey.
^ always question the brief ✨