01Introduction
PayHinga is Tonik's loan add-on. The screen was designed to push customers toward it, but they still skipped it. So I tested it to find out why, then redesigned how it was presented. I was the only designer, working with a UX writer. The head of design reviewed my work.
The loan business team wanted more customers to take the PayHinga add-on. The old flow already pushed customers hard toward it, but they still did not take it.
Old flow
The screen is overwhelming. Amount, loan breakdown, terms and monthly payment all come before PayHinga.
The decision sits on the two main buttons, so customers move forward without noticing what they chose.
On the info screen, the price sits inside the first benefit card, before customers know what they are paying for.
The UX writer and I tested the old design with 8 people. We wanted to learn 5 things.
Do customers notice PayHinga?
Some saw it but chose to ignore it. Some who did not see it tapped the opt-in button, thinking it was for the loan itself.
Do they understand what it is and what it gives them?
Almost nobody did.
How do the layout, copy and interaction affect the decision?
The loan amount screen is already full. Customers are focused on the amount, so PayHinga never gets their attention.
Is it worth the price to them?
Based on what they understood from the screen, no.
Do they see themselves as someone who needs protection?
Customers with families and more responsibilities tended to say yes. Younger customers said no.
There were two problems. People did not understand it, and even those who did understand it did not want it.
The old screen asked two questions at the same time: how much do you want to borrow, and do you want protection? I separated them into two pages, so the customer only answers one question at a time.
New flow
I took PayHinga off this screen. The buttons are now only Back and Next, so the screen asks one question. The screen also has less content now.
Before
After
The PayHinga information screen now shows in the main flow, instead of only when customers opted in. The benefits come first and stay short, so people read them instead of skipping long text. The UX writer wrote the copy. I put the price under the benefits, without emphasis. If people saw the price first, they might not read the benefits at all.
Skipping still takes only a tap and a confirmation. Our testing showed that people who did not want PayHinga would skip it anyway, so we did not want to make skipping hard.
Before
After
We ran a second round of testing with new people to avoid bias. Three things got better, and two did not change.
| Criterion | Before | After | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Visibility | Seen but ignored. Some tapped opt-in by mistake | Customers now clearly see PayHinga | Fixed |
| Comprehension | Almost nobody understood it or its benefits | Most understand what it is and what it gives them | Fixed |
| Influence of the design | Overwhelmed by the loan amount screen, focused only on the amount | With its own page, customers can focus and decide more calmly | Fixed |
| Perceived value | Not worth the price | Still not worth the price | No change |
| Risk perception | Depends on life stage | Same. Customers with families and more responsibilities tend to say yes | No change |
I would: