Redesigning MobilePay
I am working as a designer at Hello Great Works, who was given the task of creating the app interface for MobilePay. These are my thoughts on the process, hopefully providing a little insight to how the redesign was done.
A few weeks ago, MobilePay starting rolling out their newest major update, 4.0.0. This release is a large milestone, not only because it contains the most prominent over-haul in the applications 5 years on the market, but because the application is now supplied by its own company.
For those not familiar with MobilePay, it is the most downloaded smartphone application out of Denmark, having quickly risen to become the de facto standard for transferring money between Danes. If not already, this became even more apparent after the announcement by MobilePays closest competitor Swipp, stating they would shut down their service. This led to an association between a number of banks teaming up and backing MobilePay, which used to be a product of Danske Bank.
With a sparkling new set of brand guidelines (courtesy of 1508) Thomas Høgild and I were put on the task of squeezing the most important touchpoint into a brand that was more or less completely neglecting of its existence. A task that turned out to consist largely of navigating a rough sea of opinions.
What paved the way for the first version of MobilePay, quickly causing it to become such a huge success, was its simplicity. It was based around just a few crucial features, that made it easy to send and request money and not much else. It was efficient — did what you expected of it, and then got out of the way. The amount of stakeholders in the project was therefore a concern from the beginning. We would have to tackle a lot of opinions along the way, without making the app lose its clear direction. That would mean being flexible enough to weigh opinions from people by understanding where they are coming from, yet firm enough to believe in ourselves and our experience when it mattered. It is a delicate process. Technically because any feature creeping can cause the app to lose its edge, and aesthetically because simple functionality deserve a simple form. In such projects, all parts usually agree on the destination, but disagree on how to get there — which is ultimately where we as designers come in. The empathy required to switch caps, constantly weighing opinions against each other to map suggestions and the thoughts behind is hard work.
Next are the technical limitations. I do not know the exact size of the codebase making up MobilePay, but I feel it is reasonable to assume that just rewriting the code defining the use of fonts, colours and margins, is a time-consuming task. After Swipp closed down, 62 banks partnered up to fund MobilePay. The more time passed by after that announcement, the more the pressure grew for a rebranding that would reflect that it was no longer a just product of Danske Bank. This turned out to be two of the key factors for scoping the project. Any change in the design would lead to developing hours, which would then push the deadline, which could disappoint stakeholders. We both agreed that even though these factors were pretty limiting, we would have to change more that typography and colour scheme to make the interface embrace the brand.
It made me remember a blog post from almost 10 years ago, where Dustin Curtis provided a stellar example of why design in large organisations is such a rigid force. He was horrified with the experience of American Airlines online booking, and took matters into his own hands by sending them a suggested redesign free of charge. Later that day, he received a reply outlining the hoops you have to jump through, in order to do a positive difference when it comes to user experience in a large corporation. The original article is unfortunately deleted, but echoes still resonate around the internet.
MobilePay is a far younger and more flexible muscle, but keeping in mind what too many cooks do to otherwise good food, seemed crucial in order keep focus locked and spirit up.
Wrapping our heads around the problem
It became apparent that one of the most important success criteria, was to keep politics from dripping onto the design. Making the switch from one visual identity to another, could open up to a temporary merge between the two experiences, ultimately leading to a third that would act as a stand-in, while the work towards to actual rebrand would continue. You could argue that this would always technically be the case, based on the constraints, but there is a lower limit to where it would turn into a frankensteins monster, stitched together from different CVIs. First of all, it would flaw the experience as no one would be able to allocate the necessary ressources to maintaining something that temporary, but more importantly it would completely crush the golden opportunity to communicate the direction of the newly-formed company, as the actual re-brand would then seem like an after-thought to the temporary. A blow the brand would have a hard time recovering from, especially with some of the new and native competitors on the horizon.
We were absolutely certain, that simply replacing fonts and colours would not be sufficient to feel like the newly-forged brand, which is built on more than just being different from its predecessor. Compared to the original, it didn’t have the obligation to fit under the Danske Bank brand; A brand created to embrace everything from pension to mortgage, which is a far stretch to apply to a single-purpose transaction app. The new brand takes advantage of being tailor-made to its primary function; Sending money between people, or more importantly, gains the ability to communicate in a personal tone of voice compared to a professional one. To meet users at eye-level, and recognise that its purpose is beautifully simple; Providing you a service when you are doing something that matters. Getting coffee with a friend, going to a flea market or providing pocket money. It is not about finance, so there is no reason to stand on the shoulders of that cliché. It might be for the bank, but it certainly is not for the user. You might call it a transaction when speaking to your financial advisor, but your personal app should wrap itself around you, instead of you having to wrap yourself around your bank; This is what the task was all about.
After doing the initial designs, showing what a simple colour+font swap could provide, we started doing mockups like the skies were the limit. We chose to let ourselves loose and forget about as many of the constraints as we could possibly get away with. For the first couple of days we did not think about how our designs would translate to hours of programming, but purely to how it would resonate in the same harmony as the new brand. We searched high and low and came up with a palette of solutions, ranging from the somewhat easy implementable to the downright absurd. Most importantly, it gave us a clear direction to follow, created out of excitement rather than worry. One that outlined an aim greater than this specific milestone.
Fear and loathing in fintech
A purple fintech brand is subjectively a bold move. Traditionally, banking design has been limited by the array of topics it would have to present in a professional matter. The cynical shades of cyan used by a number of banks leaves an impression of authority and provides a tone suitable for conversations about finance on a personal or business level, without ever doing anything than the expected. It’s a good move for a low common denominator. A safe approach, making sure not to step on anyones toes. The worst that can happen is boring the user, something that is not unexpected from a banking brand.
In shorter terms, you could argue that a purple fintech brand is really just following in the tracks of Lunar Way, June and Sunday. And that is just counting Danish fintechs. A lot of smaller, more specialised brands have realised that they are tools for more specific needs and are using this as an opportunity. Similarly since we can be more certain about what mindset the user is in, it allows us to communicate in a more specific tone. Where traditional finance-brands have had to be able to facilitate a lot of serious topics, MobilePay has the opportunity to center around being a small but necessary bump in the road, in a setting that is usually centered around activities based on something you want instead of need.
Considering how long bank designs have looked like they are made both by and for its very own segment, the change can feel a little too radical for some. I am a strong believer in using design clichés to implement subliminal clues, which is why I think it is wise to part ways with the rigid corporate blue. The purple/turqoise colour trend is applied to a large number of different brands these days. It is not rooted in a cliché that draws parallels to finance specifically, but embracing it does hint that MobilePay is both parting ways with old constraints and instead trying to head in a more user-centered direction.
We worked hard to keep the cut from one brand to another to be as clean as possible. A bastard between the two brands would have resulted in the communication being delivered in a flimsy tone of voice, which is also worth keeping in mind for the future. Switching brand guidelines, mindset and routines is difficult, but should be executed much like high diving. Any lack of determination will cause a change the trajectory, ultimately resulting in a belly flop. And with competitors offering close-to-frictionless digital payment, a red ocean is not where you want to belly flop.
Key takeaway
If you are still with me I am guessing you have a keen interest in some form of design process; At least in its broad not-necessarily-rooted-in-graphic sense, so I will leave you with this:
This was a hard task. Looking back at it I could make a strong point, that all I really accomplished, was changing the values of a few margins and colour codes. Which was always an option to embrace. But had I felt like that at any point, I would have completely lost my focus. What ultimately made the process enjoyable, was the constant balancing act of remaining realistic and more importantly a tiny bit naïve. Had I not, the magnitude of the task would have manifested itself as either fear, resulting in a fragmented outcome, or me crashing and burning.
