Skip to main content


4 reasons millennials don’t engage with personal finance (according to millennials)

By Explanation, Opinion, Opinion No Comments

Part 2 of a series on millennials and personal finance. You can read Part 1 here

We’re currently conducting research with a group of twentysomethings – our Millennial Cohort – to find out why millennials aren’t engaging with their personal finances in the same way as previous generations.

They’d already told us that they felt underserved by current budgeting and day-to-day financial management tools, so we challenged them to create their own. We asked them to visualise their personal finances however they wanted, using a variety of pens, paper and physical tokens (oh, and glitter and Play Doh).

What we discovered should be of interest to banks. Our four key takeaways were as follows:

1) Millennials distrust financial services companies, and struggle to care about their personal finances

“I don’t trust investment companies or insurance or that kind of stuff and I don’t really care about those issues”

This is what one participant told us, and the same sentiment was expressed by others. Millennials’ distrust of financial services companies is likely to be one reason why they are less loyal customers – and more willing than older generations to switch to neo-banks or potential services by firms such as Google and Amazon.

2) The ‘one size fits all’ approach to personal financial management is inadequate

An inflexible approach to digital person finance services is also restricting banks from building loyal, engaged relationships with millennial customers. One participant commented:

Usually with financial stuff it’s very restrictive. This was all completely under my control – the paper and everything was completely blank and I liked that.”

What they produced is below – and it’s certainly unlike any of the digital interfaces available from major banks today. Aesthetics aside, its focus on goal setting and future spending is in contrast to the historical transactions emphasised by most major banks’ personal finance tools.

Participants found the ability to personalise their ‘interface’ helpful

The current statement- and spreadsheet-based personal financial management tools that banks offer are impersonal, one-size-fits-all approaches that provide plenty of raw data, but little in the way of interpretation or analysis. For a generation which are already disengaged with their finances, the need to do the heavy lifting in terms of translating data into actionable strategies is a major barrier.

3) Budgeting is hard, scary and emotionally difficult to deal with.

Whilst millennials want to be able to financially plan, these are still a source of stress for many in this generation. Participants commented that they are “scared that [they’ve] spent more than they ought to” and that in the future they’ll realize “[they] should have been more careful”.

Reflecting this, some participants used the project as an opportunity to simplify the process of keeping track of their expenditures. Below, a box of beads gives an at-a-glance view of how a participant’s money was spent, with each colour representing a different type of purchase.

There was a common consensus even among those who professed not to currently care about their finances that they were aware that understanding and managing them would be important for the future. But finding personal finance, in the words of one participant, “a complicated, tangled thing”, full engagement often felt out of reach.

4) There are no associated specific ‘real world’ goals with personal financial planning.

 A struggle to make the personal data provided by their banks feel tangible or relevant to everyday life was a common thread among participants.

Several used the research project as an opportunity to start planning towards both long and short-term spending goals, such as trips abroad or reducing the amount they were spending on incidentals such as coffee.

One participant commented that bank data “is quite bland, because it’s just digits” while another added that the project’s visualisation challenge “made me more creative in thinking about my finances”. These insights are borne out in how participants approached the project, choosing to focus on representing specific goals rather than dealing with their financial data in the aggregate.

These four learnings indicate banks are missing the mark for millennials – and in world of open banking and booming fintechs, that’s bad news for those unwilling to change. Find out why banks should be worried about these findings.

If you’d like to understand how our research techniques can help your business understand its customers better, contact us at

Millennials don’t engage with personal finances. Here’s why banks should be worried about that.

By Opinion, Explanation No Comments

Part 1 of a series on millennials and personal finance. Don’t miss the next part – read it here

Traditional banks are struggling to engage with their younger customers. Do millennials simply think banking is boring, or is this a sign of a deeper problem? Why is it that the old guard of financial services find themselves having to offer cash incentives of £100 or more to make customers switch their current account, while neobank Monzo have a waiting list to sign up?

To help answer these questions and more, we’re in the process of conducting research with real twentysomethings – our Millennial Cohort. We want to know what they want from a bank – and why they feel they aren’t getting it from major financial institutions.

The initial results aren’t good for traditional providers. It’s evident that they’re failing to connect with this key target customer group both practically and emotionally: this message from one young professional to banks and financial institutions summarises the sentiment behind many of the responses we received:

‘I want something that shows [my financial data] as a life – I am more than a machine money comes in and out of.’

But it’s not only the inclusion of these features that participants have demonstrated that they value. Personalisation was also an area highlighted by many, with one participant commenting that:

“I think [personal financial management] depends on the person and it depends on how you feel about your expenses. So generalised systems do not work for everyone. You have to create your own.”

The “one size fits all” approach that most major banks – and even neobanks – take towards personal finance interfaces left participants cold. Beyond allowing transactions to be exported as spreadsheets, there’s little possibility for customising how financial information is presented. For participants, this meant that understanding their financial status and how to change it feels out of reach.

This should worry banks. The “open banking” initiative and its related legislation – such as PSD2, in force as of January this year – mean that there is a significant opportunity for enhanced personal financial customer experiences.

A large range of smaller ‘fintech’ firms now offer more sophisticated, more user friendly and more customisable tools than the major banks, and as “open banking” grows, the savviest banks will begin offering a selection of these to their customers.

What our research so far has begun to show is that banks who do not embrace these changes will be left behind. There is a significant gap among millennials between offerings and expectations in personal finance – and that has led us to commit to further direct research in this area, with the aim of delivering clear messages and guidance in this area to banks.

In our next part, we’ll look at four key learnings that have helped shape the next stage of the research. Don’t miss it – follow us.

If you’d like to understand how our research techniques can help your business understand its customers better, contact us at


Tottenham Hotspur, Rochdale FC, and the VAR system: a very public UX failure

By Explanation, Opinion No Comments

Wednesday night’s match between Tottenham Hotspur and Rochdale was one of the most public examples of botched UX in recent memory. The introduction of the new Video Assisted Refereeing (VAR) system made for a disjointed game with long pauses, 2 goals disallowed without explanation, and mystified and angry fans and players.

What’s more, it all happened in front of an audience of millions. What went wrong – and how could it have been prevented?

When the soccer authorities initially researched the idea of using VAR to support referees’ decision making, it’s almost certain that they asked fans, players and officials the question “Do you think a system that helps to increase the accuracy of the decisions by match officials is a good idea?”. The answer would, of course, have been a resounding “Yes”. No one wants a less fair game. But the caveat that might – or at least should – have accompanied that response was “As long as it is not detrimental to the atmosphere, passion and energy of the match”.

Good UX design factors in these kinds of caveats at an early stage. When you ignore them, you end up with the kind of mess the current VAR system is in. Wednesday night’s game was a classic example of a process that functioned correctly, but still dissatisfied users – having a vastly detrimental impact on the experience for fans, players, commentators and officials alike.

Their feedback is damning – Tottenham manager Mauricio Pochettino commented “I think football is about emotion. If we are going to kill emotion, it’s not so happy what we have seen”, expert summariser Jermaine Jenas called it “comical” and that he was “sorry for the referee’”, while player Danny Rose raged that it was “complete nonsense” that he was left “waiting around and not knowing what is happening”.

During the match the new VAR team interrupted the game a number of times for several minutes each, with no explanation given to either the crowd or the players as to the reasons why. Worse, no reasons were given for why decisions originally made by the referee were over-ruled. The game’s flow was massively impacted as a result – and both players and fans were left feeling unimportant or irrelevant to proceedings.

VAR designers should now be asking themselves how they moved from universal agreement that the system was a good idea to universal vilification by its users.

Our belief is that simple UX research factored fully into the design at the earliest opportunity would have helped enormously in ensuring the VAR process both improved decision making and protected the things fans, players and officials love about the game.

By designing the system in closer collaboration with these stakeholders groups, it would have become clear that a system that interrupted the game for many minutes and did not communicate with fans and players was totally unacceptable. VAR is a clever system devised in an office by clever people, but it’s clear that its design process didn’t fully consider the needs of its users.

If they had started their design by looking at the barriers to adoption – asking stakeholders for their views and simulating potential processes – the system’s problems would have been identified long before Wednesday’s match, and it could have received very different feedback.

Simple, early UX research could’ve helped to avoid what will no doubt be a costly re-work of the system.  But this doesn’t just apply to the VAR project – many organisations are now waking up to the significant impact that early-stage UX research provides.

Making UX an integral part of your product design optimises the outcome and de-risks your project – talk to us about how we can help.

This is not a drill: The (very) real dangers of bad UX

By Explanation, Opinion No Comments

The recent Hawaii missile alert incident highlights the power of UX design in helping both system owners and system users.

On 13th January 2018, mobile phone users in Hawaii received the following emergency alert message: ‘Ballistic missile threat inbound to Hawaii. Seek immediate shelter. This is not a drill.’.

Fortunately, there was no missile inbound. It was inadvertently issued by a staff member of the Hawaii Emergency Management Agency’s State Warning Point office for a very simple reason – faced with an on-screen menu of choices, they clicked the wrong button, choosing to send a real alert instead of a drill.

A classic case of human error – but the system could have been designed to reduce the chances of this happening. Although a password had to be entered for confirmation that the message should be sent, both the drill and not-a-drill versions required this. Unhelpfully, both also used the same password.

As a consequence, there was nothing to inform the user that they had clicked the wrong link, and were about to send a live, state-wide alert.

What’s more, the links for both the ‘DRILL’ version of the alert and the real alert were very, very similar:

Why this happened

The system’s functionality served its core purpose of distributing messages quickly, but less thought was put into how users experienced the interface’s design.

Judging by the lack of error prevention and error correction measures in place in the system, UX doesn’t seem to have been a priority during development.

Had it been, a key first step would have been to consider all potential use cases before commencing development. Chief among these, the sending of a ‘drill’ or test message, and the sending of a real message.

By taking an end-to-end view of how the software will be used before implementing it, there would have been the opportunity to ensure error correction was fully integrated.

How this could have been prevented

The system’s development process appeared to have missed out one of the bedrocks of user experience – error prevention. Ensuring error prevention is considered and incorporated throughout the system’s design should help to significantly reduce the risk of a user making a mistake.

A system which does this effectively should lead the user through a clear, step by step process. There should also be clear, visual distinctions implemented, whether it be variation in colour shading or separated lists to easily differentiate between drills and non-drills.

We’ve outlined an example of how it might have worked better below, with 4 separate screens – not just one list – separating a user from sending an alert:

Screen 1: ‘Is this a real alert or a drill test?’

The user needs to select whether it’s a real or test alert they’re running.

Screen 2: ‘Is this an amber alert, tsunami alert, or missile alert?’

They then need to specify the type of alert. They would also have the option to provide extra information for recipients (e.g. an URL to a live update feed).

Screen 3: If the user has selected that this is a ‘real’ alert, a visual indicator (stop sign, emoji) appears to warn them. The user clicks ‘Confirm’.

The user has to select a confirmation button to proceed with a real alert.

Screen 4: ‘I want to tell everyone on the island about an impending nuclear strike’. The user clicks ‘Confirm’.

They need to select another confirmation button to ensure they wish to proceed. The drill option will have less steps as the consequences are less. After Screen 2, the user can quickly test the alert.

Screen 5: Click ‘Send’.

The system operators weren’t the only ones failed by its design. The system’s owners – the recipients of the message – were also let down. From a service design perspective, the alert’s recipients (all 1.4 million of them) are just as important. The usefulness of the alert message itself is questionable, particularly for a ballistic missile strike – providing a number to text or link for more information would be useful, and help to give the recipient a clearer understanding of what they should do next.

For example, San Diego’s tourism board uses an emergency app to warn about incoming tsunamis. But it’s matched up with other forms of communication – printed maps are posted to residential houses and businesses in the inundation zones, which are also available online. Road signs highlight hazardous zones and evacuation routes, which alerts and guides residents to safe areas.

It’s vital that the designer works directly with and for the user from an early stage to ensure a system is effective. If it doesn’t work well, the person operating it is liable to make mistakes – and those mistakes mean that it’s not just failing them, but the recipients too.

Customer Journey Mapping Plus – How customer lifespan mapping can provide product shaping insights

By Explanation No Comments

What is customer lifespan mapping?

Customer lifespan mapping is an extension of customer journey mapping. While journey mapping visualises a customer’s relationship with a specific product or service, lifespan mapping visualises the customer’s relationship with an entire category of products.

For example – journey mapping will identify the touchpoints of a customer with Acme Car Insurance. Lifespan mapping identifies a customer’s inherent attitudes towards car insurance broadly, as shaped by their previous experiences with it, and the stage of life they have reached.

Together they provide a powerful insight into the messaging, experience, interfaces and product design that will appeal to a target sector. In addition, it can be combined and undertaken as part of a customer journey mapping project, increasing the value of the process without a significant increase in cost.

When to use customer lifespan mapping

ExperienceLab were recently challenged by a multinational private health insurer to help them to identify how they could increase client retention in the US for their dental insurance product, and consequently reduce costly customer churn.

As our direct research with customers progressed it became evident that the drivers behind the purchase of dental insurance products went significantly beyond the experience of product selection and purchase to an understanding of customers experience and relationship with dentistry in their lives.

We talked directly to dental insurance customers in order to discover the drivers behind their purchase of the product. What we discovered was that their criteria were more closely linked to their relationship with dentistry throughout their lives than the attributes of a specific product.

This was a crucial insight – and led us to reshape the structure of our research, extending it from a journey map into a full lifespan map.

What the insurance customers told us

When our participants talked about dentists, they tended to talk not about a specific dentist – instead, they often talked about their emotions towards the act of visiting the dentist, beginning with their childhood and continuing through to early adulthood, married life, and starting a family.

“I’m terrified my kids will have bad teeth”

“I’m afraid of dentists because of what happened when I was a kid”

“I hate drilling – I have to be put under”

At each major milestone in participants’ lives, their attitudes towards dentistry shifted. What happened early in their lives often affected their attitudes in later life, too. One participant talked about how they’d neglected their teeth as a child, which caused problems as a young adult – as a result, they’re now militant about their children’s dental health, taking them for four checkups a year.

Again and again we heard anecdotal examples of the life events that had impacted the emotions customers associated with dentistry and, consequently, their dental insurance. These provided us with a wealth of insight such as the following :

1) Make your product and its value easy to understand:

Major life events had a big impact on customers’ opinion of the value of dental insurance – but they struggled to perceive differences between provider’s products and their relative values.

For example – when two people get married, they tend to select just one of their insurance policies to continue with. But a lack of transparent, easily accessible policy and product information means choosing between them is guesswork for many.

2) Give parents more than just product information, add value with advice on children’s dental health:

A lack of advice from dental insurers can leave parents feeling feel uninformed regarding how they should approach their children’s dental health.

3) Appreciate that dental health for many people is an afterthought:

Look to provide prompts and clear, easy to understand information to help customers overcome this inertia.

4) Make your product distinctive and accessible:

People don’t feel like they have a choice in insurance. Advice, support and personalised service can help to make a product distinctive, and in the long term help to forge a far more positive, loyal relationship between customer and insurer.

Why this matters to businesses

Customer journey maps are a highly effective tool – they’re a great way of reducing churn, increasing conversion and building loyalty. Customer lifespan mapping takes them one step further, enabling businesses to better understand how their product can respond to the influences that shape a consumer’s attitudes towards an industry. Understanding this broader landscape is vital to brands that aim to transition their customer relationship from transactional to emotional.

Businesses that harness this are well positioned not just to impact their figures for this year or the next, but to build a rock solid foundation for fortifying and growing their customer base into the future.

To understand how customer lifespan mapping could help your business, talk to us today.

What’s the Difference Between Service Design, UX and CX?

By Explanation No Comments

The term ‘service design’ has become overused. Partly because it’s a broad church, integrating a number of different disciplines, and partly because it’s seen as a more prestigious label for ‘user experience’ or ‘customer experience’ for agencies. As a result, it’s becoming less useful as a label – even as an industry insider, it can be hard to tell what ‘real’ service design is.

So what is the difference between UX, CX and service design? Let’s start by defining terms.

What is UX/CX? 

UX and CX deal primarily with the mechanics of how a user uses a system, and how they feel when they use those mechanics – including the effect of the non-functional elements that the system’s mechanics incorporate, such as words and images.

It’s also worth noting that while UX and CX are separate but similar fields, they are much closer to one another than either is to service design. For reasons of brevity and clarity, we’ll be discussing them as a combined discipline here. 


What is service design? 

Service design takes a fully holistic approach, and can incorporate both UX and CX. Like UX and CX, it’s user-centric, focused on improving the end-user experience. And like UX and CX, the design process is heavily informed by an initial evidence gathering phase. In the case of service design, this is usually via in-depth consultation and co-design sessions with users.


So they’re similar?

Only superficially. While there is crossover between all three disciplines, true service design is fully distinct from the more bounded approaches of UX and CX.

Fundamentally, the difference lies in the holistic approach characteristic of ‘real’ service design. A project must take into account the entire service environment – all stakeholders, actors and touchpoints, both online and offline – while considering the domino effect each small change to one area of the service will have on thoses stakeholders, actors and touchpoints in other areas.

But the differences don’t stop there. We believe there are at least three distinct properties that only a service design project will have – and that these can act as a litmus test for whether a project is true service design, or whether it’s CX dressed up. You’ll find them below.


The Test: It’s Real Service Design If…

1. It doesn’t only focus on the end-user

User-centricity is a key component of service design. It’s also a foundational aspect of CX and UX. But true service design can’t be limited to consultation with the user only – it’s fundamental that the service is designed around the service providers and commissioners too.

Who are these key actors? The service consumer is the user of a service, the service provider is the person delivering it, and the service commissioner (or ‘economic buyer’) is the person paying for it.

Here’s an example. A service design project focused on domestics at a hospital would take into account the following:

The patient (The Service Consumer)

The domestics (The Service Providers)

The NHS (The Service Commissioner/Economic Buyer)

To be fully effective, the solution must provide benefits to all three groups. Each will likely have different priorities, and this is where the skills of the service designer are tested – the solution can’t be based verbatim on the desires of each group, but the designer must arrive at a feasible solution that fits each set of needs, likely compromising on some demands in order to achieve the most effective final design. Where compromises are required, priority is ultimately given to the needs of The User.


2. Testing isn’t done in a lab

Although service design can draw on lab work, it will only be one element of the testing phase. For much of the project, the designers will be putting themselves in the shoes of the users and the service providers, and seeing how the servie works ‘on the ground’.

Back to our hospital example. Our service designers can’t possibly understand how patients and clinicians feel about the work done by the domestics from their lab or office. They’ll need to don uniforms, go to the hospital, and spend time immersed fully in the service, shadowing the real service providers and dealing with real users.


3. The brief is truly open ended

A prescriptive brief begs a solution that’s bounded, even restricted, instead of holistic. Only a truly open ended question – ‘How can this service be improved?’ – will be broad enough for a truly service design based approach.

In the hospital, this means that the brief isn’t ‘How can our domestics clean these wards faster?’, but could be ‘How can our domestics improve the overall patient experience?’.


Final thoughts                    

Real service design is fundamentally different to UX and CX – and the difference is most obvious in a project’s outcome.

Start with a UX problem, and you’ll follow a linear path to a UX solution. But start with a service design problem, and while the road to the solution might be a little longer and a little twistier, you’ll end up with a comprehensive solution covering a huge range of aspects – two of which might well be CX and UX.

How we used service design principles to create a better workspace

By Spaces, Explanation No Comments

From November 27th, we’ll be in an all-new set of research labs – and we’ve been able to purpose design them ourselves from the ground up. As service designers, we’ve used the same techniques that we use to solve client problems to craft labs that are user-designed and user-centric.

Below, we’ve distilled our approach down into three steps, and showed you how we followed them:

 1)  Co-create

Engage all stakeholders in the creative process

We knew that keeping the workspace’s users (our clients and our team) central to the design process would be fundamentally important. The very first thing we did was ask them what they wanted out of the new labs.

Our clients told us that they wanted a space that would make their research participants feel at home, while projecting a positive impression of their brand – something cool, contemporary, stylish, but informal enough not to feel intimidating. They also wanted a space sufficiently flexible for a wide range of different types of research session.

We translated those requirements into a plan for a modern and unfussy industrial style. Concrete pillars and brightly coloured metal are softened by pendant lighting, and we incorporated modular furniture that’s easy to move, stack or combine for easy switching between stand up and sit down sessions.

Meanwhile, as a team, we gave feedback on everything from key pain points in the current workspace to opinions on carpet fabric swatches, the kitchen layout, and more. We used this data as the starting point for how we approached designing the team desk and work area – feeding all the info gathered directly into the specification we provided to the architects.

2) Focus on the users

The most fundamental principle

Next, we looked at what we ourselves could interpret about what our users would want, but maybe hadn’t thought to tell us.

We knew that our lab clients often travel to us from outside London, as do their participants – meaning close proximity to a major railway station in London was an obvious priority.

Once in the labs, clients often conduct sessions that last for extended periods, so natural light and excellent ventilation would be basic requirements to ensure maximum comfort.

Speaking and listening are also fundamental parts of most sessions – leading us to prioritise acoustics, with soundproofed walls and carpeted floors chosen to facilitate clear recording of sessions.

When it came to our team, we looked at the less obvious elements that could slow down their work. This led to throwing out our current system of fixed desks, and replacing it with hot-desking and breakout pods.

Then we complemented the usual fixed meeting rooms with ad hoc magnetic, writable walls and smaller workspaces throughout the office – helping to make their work more freeflowing, and meaning they aren’t limited by meeting room bookings and other admin.

3) Think of everything

Every aspect of the service environment must be considered for a consistent, effective experience that leaves nothing to chance

Taking a holistic view of our new space’s design meant considering its surroundings, too.

What would users want from our local area? We decided we needed somewhere culturally rich – good restaurants, excellent bars, and plenty of interesting places to spend a spot of downtime. We think being in London Bridge will help to fire the imagination of our team, our clients and their participants. Free-thinking brainstorms can be tricky in a business park.

Be among the first to try our new labs – find out more here.

Power Shift: Why users have become control freaks, and what it means for UX

By Explanation No Comments

In July of this year, Apple discontinued the iPod Shuffle and Nano, marking the end of the line for its dedicated portable music players. It’s not a surprise, considering that the way we consume music has fundamentally changed since the iPod’s mid-2000s heyday, but it’s a marker of how far user experience has come in fifteen short years.

At the time, the iPod was groundbreaking not just in its convenience – its central idea that you could carry thousands of songs with you at once – but in that it allowed the user to set the agenda for their music listening. They could choose to play random tracks from their entire library, listen to all the hip-hop songs they had that began with the letter ‘A’, or hear, in chronological order, every single track they had from the 1980s.

The iPod put the user, not the label or artist, in control of how they listened to music – and it was only the tip of the iceberg. The same transfer of power from gatekeepers to users has swept quickly through virtually everything else, from TV, movies, books and videogames, to transportation (Uber and Citymapper), shopping (Amazon, with their Dash buttons and personalised online stores), and travel (when was the last time you looked at a holiday brochure?).

The generation that grew up with iPod expect a direct, instant influence over their experience of using a product, and they’re now wielding significant financial clout. To figure out how to meet their expectations for control, perhaps it’s best to look to some of the youngest and most powerful companies in the world – Google, Facebook, Netflix and Amazon.

Fifteen years ago, two of these firms didn’t even exist, and the other two were a fraction of the size they are today. One reason they’ve grown so quickly is down to how carefully shaped their products are to their users’ needs. Judicious, on-going use of their ever-expanding resource of data on how customers use their products has allowed them to change their products from what they think they should be into what users know they want them to be. The design and functionality of these tools is constantly tweaked, tested and refined based on how users react to it – you might even say the customers of Facebook, Google, et al are as much the architects of these services as the engineers who built them. At the very least, we’re the muses.

 Most companies don’t have access to the type of big data that Google rely on. And they don’t need to – any company can start giving customers a say in their product design, simply by talking to them. Brands that assume that they don’t need any input from the customer are in danger of suffering from a bad case of designer arrogance. It can be tempting for some to fall into the designer-knows-best trap, and eschew user feedback.

A designer’s expert insight is important – but when the world’s most powerful technology companies are using input from their customers as a primary starting point for their product development, it’s time to evaluate whether you’re making your users’ needs sufficiently central to your product.

Application of the right customer approaches to engaging with customers will allow you to gain a thorough understanding of what they want and need from a product’s design – we know because it’s what we’ve successfully done for a range of high profile clients over the course of thousands hours of face time with their customers.

Today’s users demand control, and they expect to have a say in how they use your product. Refuse to give it to them at your own risk.

Find out how to start making sure you’re designing your product around what your customers want, not what your designers think is best. Talk to us.