How might we increase VAPS attachment?

Challenges

Our strategy has always treated wipers and Rain Defense as add-ons to service, the enhancements we made to the experience only moved the needle by small amounts. Instead of keeping on this path, our team believed there was an opportunity to re-strategize our efforts and obtain big gains.

What is the purchase behavior of our users?

Problem statement

Out of the brainstorming, our team gravitated toward the idea of service packages. Our hypothesis was that by offering varying degrees of value-based service packages, VAPS will be treated less as an up-sell and more as a part of standard service.

Additionally, by using this tiered service strategy, we could utilize the goldilocks effect, where our lowest tier package is “too little,” our highest tier package is “too much,” but our middle package is “just right.”

However, to understand whether this strategy would be fruitful, we needed to understand our audience’s purchasing behavior and whether it mapped onto our concept.

Findings

• When purchasing products/services for their vehicle, the majority of users (62%) believe quality is most important compared to price and convenience

  • Which means: The perceived quality of packages should have a large impact

• When purchasing products/services for their vehicle, 41% of users trust a recommendation given by an expert, and 44% would prefer to purchase a group of products/services that an expert paired together.

  • Which means: Although the majority like to do their own research/pairing, a large percentage of users look to our expertise/recommendations

• 75% of users would spend more to get a higher quality product/service vs. spending the lowest amount to meet their basic needs

  • Which means: If we provide a variety of service options, many users will be interested in the higher-quality offering(s)

Recommendations

• Conceptually, the idea seemed to fit the needs of our audience and looked like it would provide guidance and confidence in the decision-making process

• Next step: Dive into the specifics of the experience

What do users associate with different service names?

Problem statement

To move forward with this experience, we needed to understand what level of quality and cost users associated with different service names. This would help guide us on what to name our service packages.

Additionally, it would help us understand what perception users would have based on the words we used to describe each service.

Findings

• Economy is perceived as the cheapest and lowest quality

  • Which means: This could further encourage users to select Standard service

• Standard is perceived as the most average option

  • Which means: Users are much more likely to choose this service

• Premium is the sweet spot for high-quality service

  • Which means: This option sits very comfortably above average, but avoids the “very/far above” labels that are attributed with names such as “Elite”

Recommendations

• Understand how service names might affect behavior so we can effectively balance attachment rate and conversion rate

How do service names affect customer behavior?

Problem statement

Now that we understood what quality and cost users perceive different service names to have, we needed to understand what impact this might have on actual behavior.

To reduce cost and risk, I tested our favorite tier names to see how they performed against each other in qualitative A/B testing to give us the best shot at a successful experiment once we pushed it live for a real A/B test.

This was a crucial step in the process, as there were a lot of differing opinions from various teams and stakeholders, and research was the way to get everyone on board with a single solution that presented the best chance at success.

Findings

• Control (Economy / Standard / Premium)

  • 49% upgraded their package

• Test A (Basic / Standard / Premium)

  • 36% upgraded their package (–13%)

• Test B (Standard / Essentials / Plus)

  • 35% upgraded their package (–14%)

• Test C (Back on the road / The Essentials / Full Service)

  • 37% upgraded their package (–12%)

• Test D (Starter / Standard / Premium)

  • 46% upgraded their package (Flat)

• Test E (Essentials / Plus / Premium)

  • 28% upgraded their package (–21%)

Recommendations

• If our first priority is to improve attachment rate:

  • Control and Test D variations will be most effective

• If our priority is to balance attachment rate & conversion rate:

  • Test A, B, and C variations will have similar results to each other

  • Compared to the Control, these variations will likely decrease attachment rate but may improve conversion rate.

How do users react to service packages?

Problem statement

After finalizing the tier names we wanted to move forward with, I still needed to ensure the experience would be effective. Up until this point, we’ve successfully tested the idea conceptually, but what does it look and feel like in practice?

Specifically, I needed to understand how customers might react. Can they complete tasks? Do they understand their options? Can they articulate what they’re choosing and why? Is the information clear and easy to review?

Findings

• Users rated their initial reaction to the design: 4.3 out of 5

• Specifically, users had a positive reaction because: (1) Price transparency, (2) Clearly laid out, (3) Variety of options, and (4) Visually eye-catching
  

• All users (100%) successfully completed the tasks

• Vast majority (96%) found reviewing the packages to be easy

• Vast majority (96%) thought the benefits of each package were clear

• Vast majority (92%) thought the pricing for cash/insurance was clear

Recommendations

• Offer the service packages experience to our users with Economy / Standard / Premium packages.

• Explore additional labels for the packages to provide further guidance (e.g. Most Popular, Best Deal, Best Rated, etc.)

• Explore auto-expanding the packages on mobile to help users compare multiple packages at the same time