logo

Income Insurance·6 min read

Increasing conversion by 71% by restructuring a misaligned product experience

Case study hero image

Project Snapshot

Role

Experience Design Manager (Player-Coach). Brought in mid-project to stabilize delivery, realign product direction, and drive critical UX decisions.

Scope

Led redesign of end-to-end mobile experience. Focused on onboarding, navigation, and purchase flows (sign-up → trigger linking → micro-insurance purchase).

Team

Worked with Head of Experience Design, VP of Product, Chief Digital Officer, and Product Lead. Coached a senior designer on research and delivery.

Timeline

~6-8 weeks (mid-project intervention under compressed timeline)

Scale

80,000+ downloads. 26,000 sign-ups. Singapore's first micro-insurance mobile app.

71%

conversion increase

12×

activation (4% → 50%)

1.5×

revenue increase

Executive Summary

SNACK by Income launched as an award-winning micro-insurance app, but conversion stalled at 7% due to user confusion and poor navigation.

Brought in mid-project to stabilize delivery, I identified the core issue as structural. The product was misaligned with user mental models and reinforced by internal bias.

I led a shift to a mobile-native navigation model, restructured onboarding, and prioritized behavior-driving flows over visual polish.

Result: +71% conversion (7% → 12%), 12× activation (4% → 50%), and +1.5× revenue.

To understand why this shift was necessary, the issue wasn't just usability. It was a breakdown in how users understood and navigated the product.

Problem

Strong early traction masked a structural breakdown in how users understood and progressed through the product

SNACK was Singapore's first bite-sized, activity-based micro-insurance product. An innovative concept that gained early traction but failed to convert.

The product had strong early traction:

80,000+ downloads
26,000 sign-ups
Award-winning concept

But conversion remained critically low (7%).

Users weren't just dropping off. They were unable to understand how to progress through the product.

At the same time, the project was under pressure:

I was brought in mid-stream to stabilize delivery
The team lacked clarity and execution momentum

This created a deeper tension. The product wasn't just underperforming, it was moving in a direction the team was no longer questioning.

Problem context image

The Turning Point

We weren't solving usability. We were correcting a misaligned mental model reinforced by organizational bias.

We initially assumed the low conversion was caused by a complex onboarding flow.

But usability testing revealed something more fundamental. Users weren't just dropping off, they were disoriented.

Across sessions, users consistently:

Didn't know where to go next
Missed key actions entirely

The root issue wasn't the flow. It was the navigation model.

Users weren't struggling to complete tasks. They were struggling to understand how the product was structured.

The app had been designed like a mobile website, relying on a hamburger menu with multiple hidden entry points. But users expected a mobile-native experience with clear, persistent navigation.

This created a deeper tension:

The existing design direction was strongly favored by the VP of Product
The team had normalized the pattern and stopped questioning it

Therefore, the real problem wasn't 'improving flows.' It was replacing a flawed mental model that the organization was attached to.

I made the call to challenge this directly:
→ Shift from hamburger navigation to a bottom navigation system aligned with top-performing mobile apps
→ Anchor the argument in user mental models and industry patterns, not opinion

This became the turning point for the entire redesign.

This reframed the problem. Not as improving flows, but correcting a flawed mental model embedded in both the product and the organization.

Decision & Trade-off

Challenging a flawed direction under political risk

Replacing the navigation model wasn't just a design decision. It was an organizational one.

The existing hamburger-based navigation was strongly favored by the VP of Product, who had been closely involved in shaping the original design direction.

Within the team, this created an unspoken constraint. Designers recognized the usability issues, but were hesitant to challenge it directly.

At the same time, the project itself was already under pressure:

I was brought in mid-project to stabilize delivery
The assigned senior designer was struggling to execute independently
The team lacked both clarity and confidence on how to move forward

This created a clear trade-off:
→ Play safe: optimize flows within the existing structure
→ Challenge the foundation: risk pushback, conflict, or being removed from the project

I made the call to challenge it.

The risk was real:

New joiner with limited political capital
Risk of being sidelined by leadership
Existing team had avoided pushing back

To navigate this, I reframed the discussion away from opinion:

Anchored on user evidence (testing sessions showing disorientation)
Benchmarked top mobile apps (establishing bottom navigation as a proven pattern)
Aligned on shared business goals (conversion, retention)

Instead of saying 'this is wrong,' I positioned it as:

'If we want higher conversion, we need to align with user mental models. Not introduce new ones.'

This shifted the conversation from design preference to business outcome.
The VP eventually aligned, and we moved forward with the new navigation model.

Once alignment was achieved, the challenge shifted from convincing to executing under tight constraints.

Strategy

Translating structural change into execution under tight constraints

Once we aligned on fixing the navigation model, the next challenge was execution under tight constraints.

The project was already delayed, and we had:

A compressed timeline to relaunch
A team still stabilizing mid-project
A product heavily dependent on custom illustrations and mascot-driven visuals

This mattered because attempting to solve everything at once would slow delivery and risk losing momentum on the core problem: conversion.

This created a key decision:
→ Do everything end-to-end (UX + visual design + illustration) and risk further delays
→ Prioritize what drives behavior change and defer non-critical work

I chose to prioritize behavior over polish.

Strategy image 1

Strategy image 2

Execution

Translating structural change into execution under tight constraints

Once we aligned on fixing the navigation model, the next challenge was execution under tight constraints. This mattered because attempting to solve everything at once would slow delivery and risk losing momentum on the core problem: conversion.

Focused the team on highest-leverage areas

I focused the team on:

Defining the core user flows end-to-end (sign-up → trigger linking → purchase)
Simplifying decision points and reducing drop-off moments
Establishing a clear interaction model (navigation, hierarchy, next actions)

At the same time, we deliberately de-scoped visual execution:

Detailed illustrations and mascot variations were handed off to a dedicated illustrator
We provided structured wireframes, interaction logic, and clear design intent
Iterated via feedback loops instead of owning pixel-perfect execution

Step 1 image

Stabilized delivery within an underperforming team

The assigned senior designer was not yet operating at the level required for this project, which created a risk to both timeline and quality.

Instead of reassigning ownership, I restructured responsibilities based on strengths to maintain momentum without destabilizing the team:

I took ownership of core UX flows and system structure
I guided her to lead user research and testing, where she could contribute more confidently

Step 2 image

Simplified the research approach for consistency

I also simplified the research approach to ensure consistency:

Structured interviews screen-by-screen
Used simple scoring (1-10) to surface usability gaps
Focused on extracting actionable insights quickly

This allowed us to:
→ Maintain delivery momentum
→ Build her confidence and visibility with stakeholders
→ Ensure the team could still function effectively under pressure

Step 3 image

Overall outcome of this approach

By prioritizing structure over polish, we were able to:
→ Move fast on the highest-leverage problem (conversion)
→ Avoid bottlenecks in a team already under pressure
→ Maintain quality without blocking delivery

With the structural changes in place, the impact became visible across the funnel.

Step 4 image

Execution / process image

Results

Structural changes to navigation and flow unlocked conversion across the funnel

The redesign delivered a 71% increase in overall conversion (7% → 12%), but more importantly, the gains came from fixing how users understood and navigated the product. Not from incremental UI improvements.

Top-of-funnel: Reducing confusion increased entry into the product

Download → Sign-up: 17% → 73%
Driven by: clarifying the value proposition, simplifying onboarding, reducing early cognitive load

Users could now understand what the product was and how to start.

Mid-to-bottom funnel: Clear navigation unlocked activation

Sign-up → Trigger linking: 4% → 50%
Driven by: replacing hidden navigation with visible structure, guiding users with clear next actions, eliminating disorientation

Users no longer had to figure out where to go. The product showed them.

Business impact: Improved activation translated directly into revenue

Overall conversion: 7% → 12% (71% improvement)
Daily revenue increased 1.5×

Fixing navigation unlocked monetization by enabling progression. The primary constraint wasn't demand. It was product structure.

Result image 1

Result image 2

Result image 3

Result image 4

Learnings

What I took away

Clear product structure matters more than visual polish.

I initially approached this as a visual vs UX trade-off. But the real constraint was structural. Users appreciated the design. But still dropped off because they didn't understand what to do next.

If users cannot form a mental model of the product, they cannot progress. No matter how polished it looks.

Organizational bias can reinforce poor product decisions.

I assumed a 'customer-centric' culture would naturally prioritize user insights. In reality, existing design decisions were protected. Teams normalized known issues. Leadership bias slowed change.

Good design decisions often require challenging organizational inertia, not just improving artifacts.

Evidence shifts alignment more effectively than argument.

Alignment did not come from presenting findings. It came from bringing stakeholders into user sessions and letting them observe confusion directly.

Seeing user friction firsthand removes interpretation and accelerates decision-making.

What the team says

"Very independent with a strong understanding of the end-to-end design process. Extremely good critical thinker and will be an asset for every organisation."

img

Daniel Ling

Head of Experience Design

"A natural and excellent mentor and leader. Despite not being our manager, he always provided guidance, advice, and a listening ear."

img

Dada Janzen

Designer

More Work

img

DBS Bank