Qualitative Research: Buy-flow Introduction Screen
Background
The design team at Charter Spectrum was working on developing a new user flow that would allow potential customers to order a TV subscription directly from their Apple TV. As part of this work, they wanted to understand what elements were most important for the first screen of this user flow.
The design team came up with 5 concepts for the introduction screen that varied the use of a few different elements:
Animation vs. static images
Images of People vs no images of people
Educational components: showing the networks that are included up front vs. hiding them behind an additional CTA
Research Goals:
Determine which of the 5 entry point concepts provides the right information to encourage a user to move forward.
Are there certain elements that make a big impact on a user’s likelihood to move forward?
Is there any additional information users want to know on the first step?
Test Format:
Because of the number of concepts we were testing, between subjects design for the study made the most sense. In order to get enough participants to see each concept in a reasonable amount of time, the study was also unmoderated. We used usertesting.com to recruit participants.
A total of 75 participants were split into 5 groups. Each participant only saw one version of the entry point. There were given the following scenario
You are sitting in front of your TV with the Apple TV remote in your hand. You recently learned that your internet service provider, Spectrum, is offering a new app for your Apple TV. You don’t know much about what it does but decide to download it to see what it is.
Each participant was then asked to do the following:
Talk through their first impressions of what they were seeing
Based entirely on the first screen, Describe what they thought the service was
Using a 5 point scale rate how likely they thought they would be to move on to the next step in the process.
Describe any information they thought was missing.
Results:
No version of the entry point resulted in a significantly higher perceived likelihood to move on to the next step. The ratings given to the version that had the educational component had less variability than the other versions. This allows us to be more confident in the ratings given to that particular variation (note the smaller error bars).
When asked what additional information participants would have liked to have seen, the version with the educational component had the lowest number of comments about "what channels" are included in the package and a high number of "none" comments.
Overall, the biggest concerns for all of the options were:
Which channels are included?
What is the real price and fees?
Will I be able to easily cancel the service?
Can I use this on other devices?
Conclusions from the Research:
The educational version of the entry point gave participants the best information regarding what channels they would actually be getting without any additional steps.
On all other versions of the entry point, participants said they would have checked what channels were included and didn't like that they had an extra step to do that.
It may be useful to include more educational components on the first screen. For example, can the service be used on other devices, does it include on demand content, will I be able to cancel easily if I don't like the trial?
Project Outcome:
The design team took this feedback and completely redesigned the entry page to include a large educational component.
Skills Used
Experimental Design
Qualitative testing
Statistics
Prototyping