Two years of progressive research and relationship building until both partners agreed to transform the experience—resulting in 4% conversion lift.
The Chase United co-branded credit card site served two masters: Chase (a financial institution with rigorous compliance requirements and a mature design system) and United Airlines (with different brand guidelines and a different appetite for experimentation). Each partner had different design maturity, legal obligations, and definitions of success.
The existing experience was a compromise that satisfied neither—and more importantly, didn't serve users well. Users couldn't easily compare card options or find the information that mattered most to them. Mobile analytics showed this was where most users visited, but the experience was particularly poor on small screens: information was either overwhelming on the homepage or buried deep in detail pages. The visual comparison experience was nearly impossible on mobile.
Getting both partners to align on a redesign—with budget and resources committed from both sides—required building trust over time. Neither partner was ready to commit to major changes based on recommendations alone. I needed to demonstrate value incrementally until the evidence for redesign was undeniable.
Chase operates under strict financial services compliance with established design patterns. United prioritizes brand expression and airline-specific concerns. Every design decision required negotiating between two very different organizational cultures.
Chase had a mature design system and rigorous review processes. United had different brand standards and less established UX governance. Aligning on what "good" looked like required extensive calibration.
Financial products come with disclosure requirements, fair lending considerations, and regulatory scrutiny. Any design change needed legal review from both sides—a process that added weeks to every iteration.
During the engagement, both organizations dealt with market pressures, leadership changes, and shifting priorities. Maintaining momentum required adapting to changing stakeholder concerns while staying focused on user needs.
Rather than proposing a full redesign upfront (which would have been rejected), I designed a research program that built insight and trust incrementally. Each study surfaced specific, defensible problems that stakeholders couldn't ignore—and small wins built appetite for larger changes.
Started with focused research questions that both partners cared about, then expanded scope as trust grew. Early studies addressed immediate concerns; later studies made the case for structural change. Each research round built on the last.
Analytics showed mobile was the primary access point, but the experience was desktop-first. I ran mobile usability studies that documented specific failures: users couldn't compare cards, couldn't find key benefits, abandoned in frustration. This evidence was undeniable—numbers both partners respected.
Presented findings differently to each stakeholder based on what they cared about. For Chase: compliance risk and conversion metrics. For United: brand perception and customer satisfaction. Same research, different emphasis—both heard what they needed to hear.
Proposed targeted improvements that both stakeholders could agree to—low-risk changes that demonstrated what was possible. Success built appetite for larger changes and established credibility for the UX team to propose bolder solutions.
After two years of relationship building, research, and incremental wins, I proposed the full redesign with testing built in. Both partners agreed—not just to redesign, but to expanded testing to validate the new experience before full rollout. The research had made the risk acceptable.
The research converged on a clear problem: the balance between showing everything upfront (overwhelming) and burying details in sub-pages (frustrating) wasn't working—especially on mobile where screen real estate is precious.
Users needed to compare cards, but the comparison experience was designed for desktop. Key benefits that users valued were hidden or de-emphasized. Information that mattered to compliance was prominent; information that mattered to users was not.
"[PLACEHOLDER: Add quote from Chase or United stakeholder about the partnership evolution—how the research changed their perspective or how the collaboration improved over time]"
[Name] — [Title]
Playing the long game was the right strategy. Rushing a redesign proposal would have failed—neither partner trusted UX enough to invest in major changes. Two years of consistent, valuable research built the credibility needed to propose (and get approval for) transformative work. Patience wasn't a weakness; it was the strategy.
I would have pushed harder earlier to get both partners in the same room for research readouts. Presenting separately allowed each to hear what they wanted to hear; joint sessions would have forced alignment faster. The separate presentations built individual buy-in, but joint sessions might have accelerated the timeline.
This case study is explicitly about securing executive buy-in and aligning senior leadership across organizational boundaries. The skills translate directly to any role requiring influence without authority: building credibility through evidence, framing findings for different audiences, and using incremental wins to build appetite for bigger change.