August 2019
Simplification of sign-in and log-in scenarios.
User activation in the service is the most important stage in the life of the product, where there are also: viewing and/or generation of content, formation of habits or purchases.
The easier and more convenient it is for the user to register or authorise, the faster he will be able to perform the targeted action, proceed to the next steps and most likely recommend the service to his circle of contacts.
While there were no problems with authorisation in the service, registration left a lot to be desired. Two logical branches and more than a dozen screens generated user refusals to complete the path and severely reduced the already low activity.
While the conversion rate at the start of registration was 3.5%, it was already 0.98% at the end. Refusals were 1.56%. Conversion to authorisation was 4.5% with rejections at 0.24%. In order to increase the conversion rates and lower the rejections, we needed to change the scenarios and conduct experiments to simplify the authentication methods.
Sorting through feedback from users and opportunities to improve activation, we came up with what we needed: Redesign the registration script; Revise registration and authorisation methods; Add notifications about linking or updating personal data.
From the very first launch of the service, users have been registering via email and password. This system did not suit customers who wanted to contact performers by phone or SMS.
At the same time, the performers were in no hurry to link their number to the service, as they did not see the value in such a procedure. Additional linking popups, which were shown one time after logging in, were skipped and forgotten.
So that new audiences wouldn't encounter similar problems later on, we decided to get rid of email and social media, and add a phone number to the registration. We had ideas to popularise this method, but it was unnecessary because of messengers who had already raised the credibility of such a method of authentication.
Going back to the check-in scenario, we moved the profile completion behind the activation. This was made possible only by combining the customer and implementer personal accounts, which used to be sluggish monsters with enormous amounts of debt.
Thus, the registration was deprived of the fields for selecting activities, selecting a profession, uploading a portfolio, confirming the telephone number and entering parental information (for persons under 18 years of age).
We have not forgotten about authorisation and have combined postal and number entry into one field in order to reduce the number of actions and components on the screen. We have also left the option of logging in via social media for users who do not have a linked email or phone number.
To bridge the gap between people who have personal data tethering and those who don't, we added security popups based on restoring account access in case of problems with the primary login method.
In order not to bother users too much these popups were added only after successful completion of a task (e.g., response to a casting) once in 3 days.
After a few months of testing, we saw a significant increase in initial signup conversion by 2.5 times to 9.2% and completion conversion by 3.5 times to 3.6%. Bounce rates, in turn, decreased almost 4 times to 0.4%.
The changes also had an impact on authorisation, with rejections decreasing 5.5-fold to 0.04%, and conversions increasing 2.5-fold to 11.9%.
While we continue to collect feedback to test the new hypothesis, we already have plans to do away with post-registration and create a single point of authentication by phone number.
You can see all the screens and flows that our team has developed in the Figma preview or by clicking on this link. The screens were developed before the design team switched to Auto-Layouts, which were added to Figma in November 2020.
The list of persons reflects those who provided support and cooperation in the process of developing the feature and the article. Also the list indicates all those who are responsible for the content of the article.
