SEA & US Insurance东南亚与美国保险体验

Role:角色：

Product Design Intern产品设计实习生

Timeline:时间：

June - Aug 2025 (12 Weeks)2025 年 6 月至 8 月（12 周）

Team团队

ByteDance/TikTok Global Payment (PIPO)ByteDance/TikTok 全球支付团队（PIPO）

Business Line:业务线：

TikTok Shop - Product Insurance ExperienceTikTok Shop — 商品保险体验

Summary摘要

Context & Overview项目背景与概览

ByteDance/TikTok's Global Payment Team (PIPO)ByteDance/TikTok 全球支付团队（PIPO）

The Global Payment team of Bytedance/TikTok provides payment solutions - including payment acquisitions, disbursements, transaction monitoring, payment method management, foreign exchange conversion, accounting, reconciliations, and so on to ensure that our users have a smooth and secure payment experience on ByteDance platforms including TikTok.ByteDance/TikTok 全球支付团队提供收款、付款、交易监控、支付方式管理、外汇兑换、会计与对账等支付解决方案，保障用户在 TikTok 等 ByteDance 平台获得顺畅、安全的支付体验。

Scope & Goal: Security + Trust + Clarity范围与目标：安全、信任与清晰

I optimized TikTok Shop's insurance experience (FinTech & E-commerce) for 5 countries across SEA & US, boosting design localization, GWP (Gross Written Premium), and NPS (Net Promoter Score).我优化了 TikTok Shop 在东南亚与美国 5 个市场的保险体验，目标是提升设计本地化、承保总额（GWP）与净推荐值（NPS）。

Responsibility职责

Research & competitor analysis研究与竞品分析
UX audits体验走查
Design optimization设计优化

aiming to improve product conversion rate and customer satisfaction.以提升产品转化率与客户满意度。

[CONFIDENTIAL] This document is accessible only to employees of ByteDance/TikTok机密内容本文档仅限 ByteDance / TikTok 员工访问

Project Details项目详情

Project Timeline项目时间线

Competitor Research & Analysis:竞品研究与分析：

Collaborate with BPO partners to conduct in-depth research on the insurance product design patterns in SEA(PH, ID, TH, MY) & the US与 BPO 合作伙伴协作，深入研究东南亚（菲律宾、印度尼西亚、泰国、马来西亚）与美国市场的保险产品设计模式。

UX audit & Problem Definition:体验走查与问题定义：

Conduct a systematic UX audit for the existing insurance purchase process on TTS to identify user pain points and optimization opportunities.系统走查 TikTok Shop 当前保险购买流程，识别用户痛点与体验优化机会。

Problem Alignment & Recommended Solution:问题对齐与方案建议：

Based on the research findings, proposed design solution recommendations, and ensure the value of the problem and design solution through stakeholder feedback, ultimately aiming to optimize the TTS insurance-related experience.基于研究结果提出设计建议，并通过利益相关方反馈验证问题与方案价值，最终优化 TikTok Shop 保险体验。

What I worked on & achieved我的工作与产出

[UNDER NDA] This project is protected by confidentiality agreements, but I would be happy to walk you through my process and the outcomes in a private interview for more details受保密协议保护该项目受保密协议保护；我很乐意在非公开面试中进一步介绍过程与结果。

Contact Me联系我

Competitive Benchmarking System可复用的竞品基准系统

🌍 Led BPO collaboration across 5 regions (PH, ID, MY, TH, US) to capture 800+ end-to-end competitor flows, delivering an annotated, reusable benchmarking system that significantly accelerated analysis efficiency.🌍 主导跨市场 BPO 协作，覆盖 5 个市场 （菲律宾、印度尼西亚、马来西亚、泰国、美国），收集 800 多条端到端竞品流程，并交付带标注、可复用的竞品基准系统，显著 提升分析效率.

Strategic Market Research区域市场策略研究

📊 Synthesized insights from 9+ core competitors into 2 key regional market reports, directly informing launch decisions and product iterations for MY, TH, and US markets.📊 综合分析 9 个以上核心竞品 ，产出 2 份重点区域市场报告，直接支持以下市场的上线决策与产品迭代： 马来西亚、泰国与美国.

Full-Funnel UX Audit全漏斗体验走查

🔍 Independently audited TikTok Shop's insurance flows and identified 3 root causes for the decline in GWP & NPS, delivering a prioritized, action-ready issue list for the next release.🔍 独立走查 TikTok Shop 保险流程，识别出 3 个根因 ，用于解释以下指标的下降： GWP & NPS，并为下一版本交付按优先级排序、可直接行动的问题清单。

Conversion Optimization转化体验优化

🚀 Designed UX improvements for entry points and benefit visibility based on audit findings; expected to reduce dropout at the add-on step and drive recovery in GWP conversion and NPS.🚀 基于走查结果优化入口与权益可见性，预期 减少流失 ，并推动附加购买环节的 GWP 转化与 NPS 回升.

Recommendations I received同事与导师评价

What others say? Hear Hear 👂他们眼中的我 👂

Some kind words from amazing folks I have worked with ~来自合作伙伴的一些真诚评价～

Stanley H (Colleague, Buddy/Mentor)Stanley H（同事、伙伴导师）

Product Designer at TikTok and BytedanceTikTok / ByteDance 产品设计师

It’s been great having Zijie as my intern buddy — he’s been incredibly helpful and really held his own for the insurance project in the SEA and US markets.

What he did well

Quick adaptability and learning
Coming from a design system background, Zijie picked things up fast. Competitor analysis and research reporting can be a steep climb — you’re basically scrutinising every screen and interaction, collecting countless end-to-end flows, spotting patterns, finding themes, and then generating insights. He adapted to that process quickly and handled it with maturity.

Strong research and insight generation
When I told him to “trust the process” (because it always feels messy at first), he took that to heart. Once he started organising the work, the patterns and themes became clear, and he was able to use them as solid insights. Initially he his scope was broad but that came with inexperience. With a little bit of guidance, he was sharp in distinguishing what really mattered from what didn’t — identifying the insights that could actually move the needle for business metrics. We ended up focusing on 3–4 key insights, which he presented really well to stakeholders. He even managed to spark further interest, leading to extra requests to explore pricing strategies and also do competitor analysis in the US market.

Proactive collaboration
He’s also incredibly proactive — reaching out to BPOs across markets to gather the materials we needed, keeping momentum without being prompted. His meeting minutes were spot-on, capturing tasks and to-dos with clarity and speed.

Overall, Zijie showed strong adaptability, initiative, and attention to detail. He learned quickly, engaged deeply with the process, and delivered meaningful outputs that got stakeholder buy-in. I have no doubts with more experience in the field Zijie will grow into an established and remarkable product designer.很高兴担任周子杰的实习伙伴。他在东南亚与美国保险项目中给了团队很多帮助，也展现了独立承担工作的能力。

他的突出表现

适应与学习速度快
虽然此前主要做设计系统，周子杰很快掌握了竞品分析与研究汇报的方法。这类工作需要逐一审视界面和交互、收集大量端到端流程，再从中识别模式、归纳主题并形成洞察。他很快适应了整个过程，处理得十分成熟。

扎实的研究与洞察提炼能力
我告诉他“相信过程”，因为研究初期往往显得混乱。他认真采纳了建议，在整理材料后逐渐看清模式与主题，并将其转化为扎实洞察。起初范围偏广，但在少量指导后，他能敏锐地区分真正重要的内容，识别可能推动业务指标的机会。我们最终聚焦 3–4 个关键洞察，他也向利益相关方进行了出色汇报，进一步引出了定价策略和美国市场竞品分析等新需求。

主动协作
他也非常主动：会联系不同市场的 BPO 收集所需材料，无需提醒便持续推动进展；会议纪要准确、及时，能清楚记录任务与待办。

总体而言，周子杰展现了很强的适应力、主动性和对细节的关注。他学习迅速、深入参与过程，并交付了获得利益相关方认可的有效产出。我相信随着经验增长，他会成为一名成熟而出色的产品设计师。

Research & Analysis研究与分析

🔴 P0 - Problem 1🔴 P0 - 问题 1Pre-purchase购买前

(SEA & US) Clarify the differences between insurance and warranty（东南亚与美国）澄清保险与商家保修的区别

Context背景

Through a UX audit, I firstly identified a critical ambiguity where users struggle to distinguish between paid insurance and free warranty—an insight later validated by data showing a clear negative impact on conversion.我在体验走查中首先发现：用户难以区分付费保险与免费保修。后续数据进一步验证了这一认知混淆，并显示它会明显损害转化。

After aligning with stakeholders, the potential impact was recognized. However, due to the current lack of A/B testing capabilities, we reviewed the prioritization and ROI, deciding to schedule this optimization for Q4 2025.与利益相关方对齐后，团队认可了问题的潜在影响。由于当时缺少 A/B 测试能力，我们重新评估优先级与 ROI，决定将本次优化排入 2025 年第四季度。

Problem问题

🎨 Identify by UX🎨 体验走查发现

Cognitive Ambiguity认知混淆

Users struggle to distinguish between Platform Insurance (paid) and Seller Warranty (included).用户难以区分平台保险（付费）与商家保修（已包含）。
This ambiguity creates cognitive load, forcing users to investigate further or hesitate, rather than making a quick purchase decision.这种含糊增加了认知负担，用户需要继续查找信息或犹豫，而无法快速做出购买决定。

📊 Validated by DA📊 数据分析验证

Funnel Deterioration漏斗表现下降

Prioritizing the insurance module on the PDP increased module clicks but negatively impacted the overall purchase funnel.提高保险模块在 PDP 上的优先级后，模块点击增加，但 整体购买漏斗反而受损.
The data suggests users are staying longer due to confusion, not engagement.数据表明，用户 停留更久是因为困惑，而不是更投入。

Existing insurance flow (SEA) — 👆 Existing Insurance Flow (SEA) 👆👆 当前保险流程（东南亚）👆

Impact:影响：

🎨 UX Hypothesis🎨 体验假设

Business & trust risks业务与信任风险

Potential decrease in Gross Written Premium (GWP).承保总额（GWP）可能下降。
Increased risk of user mistrust, misunderstandings (e.g., suspected double charging), and subsequent disputes or refunds.用户更可能产生不信任和误解，例如怀疑重复扣款，进而引发争议或退款。

📊 DA Evidence📊 数据证据

Key Data Metrics Decline关键指标下降

Conversion Rate: Drop in "PDP Visit" to "Buy Now Click" by -0.57% (p=0.09).转化率： “访问 PDP → 点击立即购买”下降 -0.57% （p=0.09）。
User Loss: Statistically significant drop in converting users (PDP Visitors to Buyers) by -0.22%.用户流失： “PDP 访客 → 买家”的转化用户数显著下降 -0.22%.
Negative Engagement: Average time on PDP increased from 30min to 33min), but this was driven by a +25% increase in exit behaviors (clicking back or swiping away).负向停留： PDP 平均停留时长从 30 分钟增至 33 分钟），但增长来自 +25% 退出行为增加（返回或滑走）。

How might we clarify and highlight the difference between the seller warranty and our insurance to shoppers?我们如何向消费者清楚说明并突出商家保修与平台保险的区别？

Opportunity机会

Clarify Value Proposition讲清价值差异

Explicitly highlight the differences between Insurance and Warranty on the PDP and Order Summary. Display price and key benefits upfront to eliminate ambiguity.在 PDP 与订单摘要中明确区分保险与保修，并前置展示价格和核心权益，消除含糊。

Reduce Friction减少决策阻力

Provide sufficient information on the main page to enable decision-making reducing/without forcing users to click into a secondary page, thereby smoothing the friction in the purchase path.在主页面提供足够信息支持决策，尽量避免迫使用户进入二级页面，从而缩短购买路径。

Goal目标

Visualize the Benefit让权益可视化

Help users immediately picture the "hassle-free" experience (hassle reduction) that comes with the insurance.帮助用户立即理解保险能如何减少后续麻烦。

Capture Attention抓住注意力

Create a strong visual hook to grab user interest instantly among other information.用更醒目的视觉呈现，让用户快速注意到保险价值。

Encourage Engagement促进理解

Motivate users to read the content and understand the insurance value.鼓励用户阅读内容并理解保险价值。

Solution方案🔴 P0 - Problem 1🔴 P0 - 问题 1

Design Proposals设计方案

Full pre-purchase flow (updated) — 👆 Full Pre-purchase Flow (Updated); [Scroll Horizontally to See More ↔️] 👆👆 完整购买前流程（更新版）；[左右滑动查看更多 ↔️] 👆

Option A: Minimal Effort - Copy Update Only方案 A：低投入——仅更新文案

✅ Pros:✅ 优点：

Preserves existing design: Maximizes the retention of current design decisions.保留现有设计：最大限度保留当前设计决策。
Simple and straightforward: Maintains a minimalist UI without adding visual clutter.简单直接：保持界面简洁，不增加视觉负担。

❌ Cons:❌ 缺点：

Too Conservative: The change might be too subtle.改动过于保守：变化可能不够明显。
Habituation (Banner Blindness): Users, especially returning ones, often scan past text-heavy areas out of habit. A subtle copy update lacks the visual disruption needed to break this pattern and capture their attention.习惯性忽略（横幅盲区）：用户，尤其是回访用户，常会习惯性略过文字密集区域。仅做轻微文案调整，难以打破这一浏览习惯并抓住注意。
Low Engagement: Relying solely on text (copy) runs the risk that users still won't read or process the information.参与度低：只依赖文字，用户仍可能不阅读或无法有效理解。

Option B: Medium Effort - Visual Enhancement方案 B：中等投入——强化视觉表达

✅ Pros:✅ 优点：

Informative & Scannable: Provides sufficient information but in a more visual format compared to Option A.信息充分、易于扫读：在信息充分的同时，比方案 A 更具视觉性。
Better Readability: Much easier for users to digest than a block of text.可读性更好：相比大段文字更容易理解。

❌ Cons:❌ 缺点：

Development Cost: Requires building new UI components.开发成本：需要开发新的 UI 组件。
Learning Curve: Potential friction if the new pattern is unfamiliar to users.学习成本：如果用户不熟悉新模式，可能带来额外阻力。

Option C: High Effort - Comprehensive Data Table方案 C：高投入——完整对比表

✅ Pros:✅ 优点：

Highly Informative & Flexible: Offers maximum detail with the option to collapse.信息最完整且灵活：提供最完整细节，并支持折叠。
Straightforward: The tabular format is easy to scan.直观：表格形式便于快速扫读。

❌ Cons:❌ 缺点：

Cognitive Load: Risk of information overload.认知负担：存在信息过载风险。
Intrusiveness: Could be perceived as annoying or distracting by users.干扰性：用户可能觉得打扰或分散注意。

← Swipe to explore Options A–C →← 左右滑动查看方案 A–C →

Potential Solution Impacts方案的潜在影响

*Note - Since this optimization is scheduled for Q4 A/B testing, these are the projected improvements based on current negative baselines.*注：该优化计划于第四季度进行 A/B 测试，以下为基于当前负向基线的预期改善，并非已实现结果。

Recover Conversion Funnel挽回漏斗损失

Outcome: Eliminate the cognitive friction caused by ambiguity to recover the lost user throughput.预期结果：消除含糊带来的认知阻力，挽回流失用户。
Metric: Reverse the negative trend in PDP Visit to Buy Now Click (Target: Recover the -0.57% drop) and Visitor to Buyer Conversion (Target: Recover the -0.22% drop).指标：扭转以下指标的负向趋势： PDP 访问 → 点击立即购买 （目标：挽回 -0.57% 的下降）以及 访客 → 买家转化 （目标：挽回 -0.22% 的下降）。

Correct User Engagement Behavior减少困惑造成的无效停留

Outcome: Reduce "Negative Dwell Time" (confusion-driven stay) and decrease abandonment.预期结果：减少由困惑造成的“负向停留”，降低放弃率。
Metric: Decrease Negative Exit Behaviors (Target: Reduce the current +25% spike in "Click Back" or "Swipe Away" actions).指标：降低 负向退出行为 （目标：减少当前 +25% “返回”或“滑走”行为的上升）。

Drive Business Growth (GWP)推动业务增长（GWP）

Outcome: By clarifying the unique value of paid insurance vs. free warranty, users will be more confident in adding insurance to their cart.预期结果：讲清付费保险相较免费保修的独特价值，让用户更有信心把保险加入购物车。
Metric: Increase Insurance Attach Rate (Purchase Rate) and GWP (Gross Written Premium).指标：提升 保险附加购买率 （购买率）与 GWP （承保总额）。

Mitigate Post-Purchase Disputes减少购买后争议

Outcome: Clear differentiation upfront prevents users from mistakenly purchasing insurance or assuming it was free, reducing "accidental" purchases.预期结果：提前明确区分，避免用户误购保险或误以为保险免费，从而减少非预期购买。
Metric: Decrease Refund/Dispute Rate related to "Unrecognized Charge" or "Double Charging".指标：降低 退款／争议率 ，尤其是与“不明扣款”或“重复扣款”相关的问题。

Scroll down to continue to Problem 2继续向下查看问题 2

Research & Analysis研究与分析

🔴 P0 - Problem 2🔴 P0 - 问题 2Post-purchase购买后

(SEA) Distinguish the Protection Policy and Insurance Claim Info（东南亚）区分保单与保险理赔信息

Context背景

Insurance information involves two distinct user-experience paths—policy status and claim status. Unlike us, competitors employ progressive disclosure to manage user attention and display these two paths separately.保险信息包含两条不同的用户路径：保单状态与理赔状态。竞品会通过渐进披露管理用户注意力，并将两条路径分开呈现。

After aligning with stakeholders, the proposal was well received. However, stakeholders consider improving insurance purchase flow with a higher priority than claims experience, so this optimization was scheduled for Q4 follow-up.与利益相关方对齐后，方案获得积极反馈；但团队认为购买流程优先级高于理赔体验，因此将本项优化安排在第四季度继续推进。

Post-pruchase Experience购买后体验

Policy: The contract you bought. It is the proof that you have protection (e.g., "Active" or "Expired").保单：用户购买的保险合同，用于证明保障是否有效，例如“生效中”或“已到期”。
Claim: The request you make when something goes wrong. It is the process of asking the insurance company for money or repairs.理赔：发生问题后用户提交的申请，用于向保险公司请求赔付或维修。

Problem问题

🎨 UX Identified🎨 体验走查发现

Ambiguous Information Architecture信息架构含糊

The user flows for Protection Policies and Insurance Claims are not clearly distinguished.保单与保险理赔的用户流程没有被清楚区分。
Confusing progress indicators fail to signal the independence of these two functions, creating a mismatch with the user's mental model.含糊的进度指示 无法说明两项功能彼此独立，与用户心智模型不一致。

👤 User Pain Point👤 用户痛点

Navigation Friction导航阻力

Users struggle to discern between managing a policy and tracking a claim due to the lack of separation in the interface.界面没有明确分区，用户难以判断自己是在管理保单，还是追踪理赔。

Policy: Processing → Protected → Expired; (Failed/Cancelled)保单： 处理中 → 保障中 → 已到期；（失败／已取消）
Claim: Claim in review → Review outcome (Approved/Rejected) → Resolution (Paid)理赔： 理赔审核中 → 审核结果（通过／拒绝）→ 处理完成（已赔付）

Existing insurance claim flow and IA (SEA) — 👆 Existing Insurance Claim Flow & IA (SEA) 👆👆 当前保险理赔流程与信息架构（东南亚）👆

Impact影响

💼 Business Risk💼 业务风险

Operational Costs & Trust运营成本与信任

Increased Support Volume: Confusion when searching for claim progress leads to a spike in Customer Service (CS) inquiries.客服量增加：用户查找理赔进度时产生困惑，导致客服咨询量上升。
Erosion of Trust: A confusing post-purchase experience damages brand credibility.信任受损：含糊的购买后体验会损害品牌可信度。

📉 Long-term Metrics📉 长期指标

Key Data Metrics Decline关键指标下降

Risk of reducing Net Promoter Score (NPS) and, ultimately, Gross Written Premium (GWP) due to poor retention.较差的留存可能拉低净推荐值（NPS），并最终影响承保总额（GWP）。

How might we clearly distinguish the policy coverage flow from the insurance claim flow to prevent user confusion?我们如何清楚区分保单保障流程与保险理赔流程，避免用户混淆？

Opportunity机会

Separate the Paths分离两条路径

Create distinct pages for Policies and Claims. "Holding a policy" and "Tracking a refund" are different tasks and should not be mixed.为保单与理赔建立独立页面。“持有保单”和“追踪赔付”是不同任务，不应混在一起。

Visual Distinction视觉区分

Use different UI patterns to clarify the difference:用不同的界面模式说明差异：

Policies: Use static Status Labels (e.g., Active).保单：使用静态状态标签，例如“生效中”。
Claims: Use dynamic Progress Bars (e.g., In Review → Paid).理赔：使用动态进度条，例如“审核中 → 已赔付”。

Goal目标

Instant Clarity一眼看懂

Ensure users immediately know if they are looking at a policy or a claim status.让用户立即知道当前看到的是保单还是理赔状态。

Reduce Friction减少决策阻力

Minimize navigation errors and confusion.尽量减少导航错误与混淆。

Build Post-Purchase Trust建立购买后信任

Provide a transparent and anxiety-free experience during the stressful claims process to protect user sentiment and long-term retention (NPS).在压力较高的理赔过程中提供透明、少焦虑的体验，保护用户感受与长期留存（NPS）。

Solution方案🔴 P0 - Problem 2🔴 P0 - 问题 2

Design Proposals设计方案

Design Rationale & Strategy设计依据与策略

Prioritizing by Frequency按使用频率确定优先级

Data-Driven: Existing data indicates that the "Claims" function has a very low usage rate.数据依据：现有数据表明，“理赔”功能的 使用率很低.
Decision: It is justifiable to lower the accessibility level (adding one extra step for progressive disclosure) to declutter the primary interface.决策：因此可以适当降低其入口层级，用多一步的渐进披露换取主界面的清晰。

Distinguishing by Static vs Dynamic用静态状态与动态过程区分

Policy (Static State): Represents ownership. It answers: "What am I covered for?" and "Is my protection valid?"保单（静态状态）： 代表用户拥有的保障，回答“我获得哪些保障？”以及“保障是否有效？”
Claim (Dynamic Process): Represents action. It answers: "Where is my money?" or "What is the status of my refund?"理赔（动态过程）： 代表正在进行的操作，回答“赔款到哪一步了？”或“退款状态如何？”

Full purchase flow (updated) — 👆 Full Purchase Flow (Updated); [Scroll Horizontally to See More ↔️] 👆👆 完整购买流程（更新版）；[左右滑动查看更多 ↔️] 👆

Screen details (updated) — 👆 Screen Details (Updated); [Scroll Horizontally to See More ↔️]👆 页面细节（更新版）；[左右滑动查看更多 ↔️]

Potential Solution Impacts方案的潜在影响

*Note - As a new business line (Insurance), this project is prioritized for Q4 2025 implementation due to business focus on the purchase flow.*注：保险仍是新业务，团队当前优先关注购买流程，因此本项优化计划于 2025 年第四季度推进。

Reduce Operational Costs降低运营成本

Outcome: We anticipate a significant drop in users contacting support due to confusion about their claim status ("Where Is My Claim?").预期结果：预期因不清楚理赔状态而联系客服的用户将明显减少。
Metric: Decrease in CS Ticket Volume (specifically claim-related inquiries).指标：降低 客服工单量 （尤其是理赔相关咨询）。

Improve Wayfinding Efficiency提升导航效率

Outcome: Users should distinguish between Policy and Claim status faster and without mistakes.预期结果：用户应能更快、更准确地区分保单与理赔状态。
Metric: Decrease in Navigation Error Rate (users clicking the wrong tab) and Task Completion Time.指标：降低 导航错误率 （用户点错标签页）以及 任务完成时间.

Protect User Sentiment保护用户信任与留存

Outcome: A transparent post-purchase experience prevents user frustration, protecting long-term retention.预期结果：透明的购买后体验能减少挫败，保护长期留存。
Metric: Maintain or Increase Post-Claim NPS (Net Promoter Score).指标：维持或提升 理赔后 NPS （净推荐值）。