Product Designer
Product Design UX/ UI & Graphic Design
2023
Designing for a demographic that had never been asked what they wanted
A Brazilian fintech needed a strategy for acquiring and retaining Gen Z users, specifically 15 to 21 year-olds from classes C and D. The brief was broad. The research revealed something more specific: the product wasn't failing on features. It was failing on trust, tone, and the assumption that younger users wanted gamification when what they actually wanted was transparency.This was a strategic exploration project. The research is real, the methodology is documented, and the outputs were a design direction and roadmap. The project was not deployed, so there are no post-launch metrics.
12
In-depth user interviews
8
Guardian conversations
5
Competitor apps analyzed
6
Co-creation participants
Product Designer
Product Design UX/ UI & Graphic Design
2023
Designing for a demographic that had never been asked what they wanted
A Brazilian fintech needed a strategy for acquiring and retaining Gen Z users, specifically 15 to 21 year-olds from classes C and D. The brief was broad. The research revealed something more specific: the product wasn't failing on features. It was failing on trust, tone, and the assumption that younger users wanted gamification when what they actually wanted was transparency.This was a strategic exploration project. The research is real, the methodology is documented, and the outputs were a design direction and roadmap. The project was not deployed, so there are no post-launch metrics.
12
In-depth user interviews
8
Guardian conversations
5
Competitor apps analyzed
6
Co-creation participants
A product designed for trust that younger users didn't trust
The fintech had built its reputation on financial inclusion for underbanked segments in Brazil. Its core demographic was adults in classes C and D who had limited access to traditional banking. The product worked well for that audience. The problem was that their younger users, the 15 to 21 age group that would become the core customer base in five years, were opening accounts but not staying engaged.
The company's hypothesis going into the project was that the product needed more gamification: missions, rewards, streaks, social features. This is the standard playbook for fintech youth engagement in 2023. The research challenged it.
The 16 to 18 age group, the transitional independence cohort where users first take control of their own finances, had a more specific problem. They weren't disengaged because the product was boring. They were disengaged because they didn't understand what it was doing with their money and they didn't feel like the product was designed with them in mind.
Six methods, structured to challenge the brief
12 In-depth interviews
15 to 21 year-olds. Financial habits, aspirations, frustrations with current tools.
8 Guardian conversations
Parents and guardians of the 15 to 17 cohort. Concerns, oversight expectations, consent dynamics.
5 Competitor teardowns
Structured analysis of youth-focused fintech apps. Feature mapping, onboarding comparison, trust signal audit.
1 Co-creation workshop
6 participants from the target cohort. Feature ideation, prioritization, prototype reactions.
A/B Gamification testing
Tested different gamification approaches on the existing user base. Mission types, reward structures, visual styles.
3 Persona development
Research-grounded personas for the 15 to 17, 18 to 20, and 20 to 22 cohorts. Different financial contexts, different needs.
What challenged the original hypothesis
The gamification A/B test was inconclusive on engagement metrics but highly informative on attitude. Users who completed gamified missions reported feeling patronized, not motivated. The feedback from the co-creation workshop was consistent: younger users wanted to understand what was happening with their money first. Missions felt like a distraction from that. This reframed the entire design direction.
What the research actually said
01
Transparency over engagement. The 16 to 18 cohort consistently ranked understanding their money as a higher priority than rewards or gamification.
"I want to know why my balance changed" appeared in 9 of 12 interviews.
02
The tone was misread. Marketing language designed for trust ("safe," "secure," "reliable") read as distant and bureaucratic to younger users.
They associated it with the traditional banking they were trying to avoid.
03
Parental supervision is not the same as parental control. The 15 to 17 cohort wanted parents to be able to see activity without being able to block or reverse it.
The distinction between visibility and control was consistent across guardian conversations too.
04
Financial education landed better as context, not content. Standalone "learning" features were ignored. Educational information embedded directly in
transaction moments ("you spent 34% more on food this week than last week") was noticed and appreciated.
05
Competitor products were setting the UX standard. Five competitor apps all had features this product lacked: spending breakdowns,
savings goals with visual progress, plain-language transaction descriptions. These weren't nice-to-haves for younger users. They were baseline expectations.
06
Color and visual identity carried more trust signal than expected. [ESTIMATED] Based on published color psychology research, warmer palettes (yellow, orange)
signaled optimism and accessibility to younger audiences, while the existing blue-dominant palette signaled security but also formality.
The 4-color maximum for financial app interfaces was a consistent finding across competitor analysis.
07
UI disconnected from the rebrand. The rest of the product had been updated. Onboarding hadn't, and users noticed at the worst possible moment.
What shaped the design direction
Brand consistency with existing adult product
Regulatory compliance for accounts held by minors
Performance limits with gamified/animated elements
Parental supervision feature had to preserve user autonomy perception
Gamification had to encourage financially responsible behaviour, not just usage
Integration with existing core banking infrastructure
The most structurally difficult constraint was the parental supervision system. Creating a feature that allowed parents to see activity without being able to reverse transactions required a new permission model that didn't exist in the current architecture. It was technically possible but outside the scope of what could be delivered in the initial phase. The strategy documented it as a phase-two requirement and designed around it with optional visibility-only alerts.
Where the research changed the direction
Decision 01
Reframe gamification as financial literacy scaffolding, not engagement bait
The original brief asked for missions and streaks. The research showed these landed badly if they weren't connected to actual financial behaviour. The revised approach was to use game mechanics to surface information the user already wanted, not to manufacture reasons to open the app. A savings challenge became a way to visualize progress toward a goal the user had set. A "mission" became a guided walkthrough of a feature the user hadn't discovered yet.
This is a meaningful distinction. Engagement gamification drives opens and session time. Literacy gamification drives capability and confidence. The second is harder to measure but significantly more defensible as a product direction for a financial app serving a vulnerable demographic.
Decision 02
Shift the visual identity toward approachability without losing financial credibility
The existing palette was heavily weighted toward blue, which tested well for trust and security with adult users but read as formal and distant to younger cohorts. The design direction introduced yellow as a secondary accent alongside the existing blue, drawing on color psychology research that associates yellow with optimism and energy in younger Brazilian audiences.
The constraint was maintaining brand consistency with the adult product. The solution was to treat the visual evolution as a sub-brand rather than a full rebrand: same core identity, adjusted palette weighting and typographic tone. The interface kept the four-color maximum consistent with the financial app accessibility standard documented in competitor analysis.
Decision 03
Design the parental supervision layer around visibility, not control
Both the user interviews and the guardian conversations pointed to the same distinction: parents wanted awareness, not veto power. A teenager who knows a parent can see their transactions treats their account differently than one who knows a parent can block them. The design proposed optional, passive visibility for parents, with no ability to reverse transactions, freeze the account, or modify limits from the parent side. All of those controls remained exclusively with the account holder.
This required a new permission model that was documented as a phase-two engineering requirement. The initial launch version shipped without this feature, with the design direction preserved for the second phase.
Decision 04
Move financial education out of dedicated screens and into transaction context
Standalone financial education features had near-zero engagement in competitor analysis and user testing. The research showed that the same information, when surfaced at the moment a transaction happened, was read and appreciated. The design direction eliminated the "learn" navigation item and replaced it with contextual information embedded in the transaction feed, spending breakdowns, and savings progress views.
What the project produced
Design system evolution
Updated component library covering the youth sub-brand: adjusted palette, typographic tone, and touch target specifications for the 15 to 21 cohort.
Gamification framework
Structured approach to mission design: literacy-grounded, financially meaningful, with explicit criteria for what qualifies as a mission and what doesn't.
Feature roadmap
Phased plan covering initial launch (transparency, contextual education, savings goals) through to phase two (parental supervision, social features, advanced gamification).
Research personas
Three research-grounded personas: 15 to 17 (supervised independence), 18 to 20 (transitional), 20 to 22 (established). Each with distinct financial contexts and product needs.
Competitor benchmark
Detailed analysis of 5 youth fintech competitors: feature matrix, onboarding comparison, trust signal audit, and gap analysis against the current product.
Interface prototypes
High-fidelity screens for the revised onboarding, transaction feed with contextual education, savings goal interface, and updated account selection flow.
What I specifically did
Led all 12 user interviews and 8 guardian conversations, defining the discussion guide and synthesizing findings
Designed and facilitated the co-creation workshop with 6 participants from the target cohort, producing feature prioritization and early concept validation
Ran structured teardowns of 5 competitor apps, producing a feature matrix and gap analysis that directly informed the roadmap
Challenged the original gamification brief based on research findings and reframed the direction from engagement gamification to literacy scaffolding
Designed the parental supervision model, resolving the visibility-vs-control tension documented in research and scoping the permission architecture for phase two
Produced high-fidelity prototypes for the revised onboarding, transaction feed, and savings interface
Delivered the complete design system evolution, gamification framework, and phased feature roadmap
Six methods, structured to challenge the brief
12 In-depth interviews
15 to 21 year-olds. Financial habits, aspirations, frustrations with current tools.
8 Guardian conversations
Parents and guardians of the 15 to 17 cohort. Concerns, oversight expectations, consent dynamics.
5 Competitor teardowns
Structured analysis of youth-focused fintech apps. Feature mapping, onboarding comparison, trust signal audit.
1 Co-creation workshop
6 participants from the target cohort. Feature ideation, prioritization, prototype reactions.
A/B Gamification testing
Tested different gamification approaches on the existing user base. Mission types, reward structures, visual styles.
3 Persona development
Research-grounded personas for the 15 to 17, 18 to 20, and 20 to 22 cohorts. Different financial contexts, different needs.
What challenged the original hypothesis
The gamification A/B test was inconclusive on engagement metrics but highly informative on attitude. Users who completed gamified missions reported feeling patronized, not motivated. The feedback from the co-creation workshop was consistent: younger users wanted to understand what was happening with their money first. Missions felt like a distraction from that. This reframed the entire design direction.
What the research actually said
01
Transparency over engagement. The 16 to 18 cohort consistently ranked understanding their money as a higher priority than rewards or gamification.
"I want to know why my balance changed" appeared in 9 of 12 interviews.
02
The tone was misread. Marketing language designed for trust ("safe," "secure," "reliable") read as distant and bureaucratic to younger users.
They associated it with the traditional banking they were trying to avoid.
03
Parental supervision is not the same as parental control. The 15 to 17 cohort wanted parents to be able to see activity without being able to block or reverse it.
The distinction between visibility and control was consistent across guardian conversations too.
04
Financial education landed better as context, not content. Standalone "learning" features were ignored. Educational information embedded directly in
transaction moments ("you spent 34% more on food this week than last week") was noticed and appreciated.
05
Competitor products were setting the UX standard. Five competitor apps all had features this product lacked: spending breakdowns,
savings goals with visual progress, plain-language transaction descriptions. These weren't nice-to-haves for younger users. They were baseline expectations.
06
Color and visual identity carried more trust signal than expected. [ESTIMATED] Based on published color psychology research, warmer palettes (yellow, orange)
signaled optimism and accessibility to younger audiences, while the existing blue-dominant palette signaled security but also formality.
The 4-color maximum for financial app interfaces was a consistent finding across competitor analysis.
07
UI disconnected from the rebrand. The rest of the product had been updated. Onboarding hadn't, and users noticed at the worst possible moment.
What shaped the design direction
Brand consistency with existing adult product
Regulatory compliance for accounts held by minors
Performance limits with gamified/animated elements
Parental supervision feature had to preserve user autonomy perception
Gamification had to encourage financially responsible behaviour, not just usage
Integration with existing core banking infrastructure
The most structurally difficult constraint was the parental supervision system. Creating a feature that allowed parents to see activity without being able to reverse transactions required a new permission model that didn't exist in the current architecture. It was technically possible but outside the scope of what could be delivered in the initial phase. The strategy documented it as a phase-two requirement and designed around it with optional visibility-only alerts.
Where the research changed the direction
Decision 01
Reframe gamification as financial literacy scaffolding, not engagement bait
The original brief asked for missions and streaks. The research showed these landed badly if they weren't connected to actual financial behaviour. The revised approach was to use game mechanics to surface information the user already wanted, not to manufacture reasons to open the app. A savings challenge became a way to visualize progress toward a goal the user had set. A "mission" became a guided walkthrough of a feature the user hadn't discovered yet.
This is a meaningful distinction. Engagement gamification drives opens and session time. Literacy gamification drives capability and confidence. The second is harder to measure but significantly more defensible as a product direction for a financial app serving a vulnerable demographic.
Decision 02
Shift the visual identity toward approachability without losing financial credibility
The existing palette was heavily weighted toward blue, which tested well for trust and security with adult users but read as formal and distant to younger cohorts. The design direction introduced yellow as a secondary accent alongside the existing blue, drawing on color psychology research that associates yellow with optimism and energy in younger Brazilian audiences.
The constraint was maintaining brand consistency with the adult product. The solution was to treat the visual evolution as a sub-brand rather than a full rebrand: same core identity, adjusted palette weighting and typographic tone. The interface kept the four-color maximum consistent with the financial app accessibility standard documented in competitor analysis.
Decision 03
Design the parental supervision layer around visibility, not control
Both the user interviews and the guardian conversations pointed to the same distinction: parents wanted awareness, not veto power. A teenager who knows a parent can see their transactions treats their account differently than one who knows a parent can block them. The design proposed optional, passive visibility for parents, with no ability to reverse transactions, freeze the account, or modify limits from the parent side. All of those controls remained exclusively with the account holder.
This required a new permission model that was documented as a phase-two engineering requirement. The initial launch version shipped without this feature, with the design direction preserved for the second phase.
Decision 04
Move financial education out of dedicated screens and into transaction context
Standalone financial education features had near-zero engagement in competitor analysis and user testing. The research showed that the same information, when surfaced at the moment a transaction happened, was read and appreciated. The design direction eliminated the "learn" navigation item and replaced it with contextual information embedded in the transaction feed, spending breakdowns, and savings progress views.
What the project produced
Design system evolution
Updated component library covering the youth sub-brand: adjusted palette, typographic tone, and touch target specifications for the 15 to 21 cohort.
Gamification framework
Structured approach to mission design: literacy-grounded, financially meaningful, with explicit criteria for what qualifies as a mission and what doesn't.
Feature roadmap
Phased plan covering initial launch (transparency, contextual education, savings goals) through to phase two (parental supervision, social features, advanced gamification).
Research personas
Three research-grounded personas: 15 to 17 (supervised independence), 18 to 20 (transitional), 20 to 22 (established). Each with distinct financial contexts and product needs.
Competitor benchmark
Detailed analysis of 5 youth fintech competitors: feature matrix, onboarding comparison, trust signal audit, and gap analysis against the current product.
Interface prototypes
High-fidelity screens for the revised onboarding, transaction feed with contextual education, savings goal interface, and updated account selection flow.
What I specifically did
Led all 12 user interviews and 8 guardian conversations, defining the discussion guide and synthesizing findings
Designed and facilitated the co-creation workshop with 6 participants from the target cohort, producing feature prioritization and early concept validation
Ran structured teardowns of 5 competitor apps, producing a feature matrix and gap analysis that directly informed the roadmap
Challenged the original gamification brief based on research findings and reframed the direction from engagement gamification to literacy scaffolding
Designed the parental supervision model, resolving the visibility-vs-control tension documented in research and scoping the permission architecture for phase two
Produced high-fidelity prototypes for the revised onboarding, transaction feed, and savings interface
Delivered the complete design system evolution, gamification framework, and phased feature roadmap