VALIC, one AIG’s subsidiaries that specifically deals with 403(b)s and 401(k)s launched a personal financial robo advisor.
After the initial launch of the service, our Product Owners learned that there was a low enrollment rate and that the few user’s who were engaging with the landing page were not understanding the two different options that were being provided.
UX + UI Designer
With the help of our research partners, Corporate Insights, our team conducted a test to evaluate a user’s likelihood to enroll into the GPS services program.
We recruited 12 participants who were the primary decision makers for their retirement accounts and implemented a think-out-loud study. The goal was to understand if their key consideration drives were addressed in the content of design the landing and analysis results page.
1. Misunderstanding differences between Portfolio Advisor and Portfolio Manager.
The Portfolio Advisor offers advice while the Portfolio Manager is a managed account that automatically implements the investment advice. When we asked our participants to describe the two levels of service, some believed that a Portfolio Manager was a more personalized service that gave them access to an in-person financial advisor. Others believed that they had to first opt-in to Portfolio Advisor and then could receive the benefits of Portfolio Manager.
2. Confusing process for contacting financial advisor.
Clicking on the contact advisor link leads to a modal to submit their request without any additional information or the option to write a message. This did not match user’s expecations and they were especially frustrated because they were not sure about how or when they would be contacted.
3. There were a few other concerns we saw that came up with multiple participants.
Participants wanted to understand the costs of the two services which was not mentioned anywhere on the page.
They also requested reviews from other VALIC customers who had used the service before deciding on whether or not to enroll.
1. Current vs Reccomended Strategy sections are confusing, partially because they were in seperate sections.
2. Contextual links are very helpful for updating contributions, investments and their profile, but it frustrated participants that doing so led to a different part of the site.
3. The alert was confusing and on first glance looked like an error that needed to be fixed immediately.
1. The product cards included side-by-side explanations which make them easier to compare. I Included the cost of both services which we heard was a big factor for our users.
2. I changed the heirarchy of the page sections. The product information needed to be presented first since it is the most important information and deciding factor for our users.
3. Added product reviews.
4. More detailed breakdown of options for contacting the Financial Advisor.
1. Added a visual for participants to clearly see how close or far they are from their goal.
2. Combined the Reccomended and Current strategy to make them easier to compare.
3. Put all of the information that can be updated into one flow that is accessed by the "Make Changes" button.