Overview
Revisited Techcombank’s Auto-Earning feature (AE 1.0) into Auto-Earning 2.0 (AE 2.0), a more intuitive, customer-centered product that helps users earn extra income from idle cash effortlessly.
Result: This shift led to a significant improvement in user experience and increased the retention rate by 2 times.
Role: Product designer
Timeline: March to July, 2024
Timeline: March to July, 2024
Before we start
1. What is Auto-Earning?
AE is a smart add-on to the current account. It helps customers grow idle cash by automatically sweeping it into a higher-interest product (Certificate of Deposit and other investment assets), while keeping the money accessible for spending.
2. When was it launched?
The first version (AE 1.0) was mass-launched in early 2024.
3. Why revisit the experience?
After launch, we found that only 24% of customers who activated AE 1.0 kept using it. Many turned it off after a few days. As the only product designer, I partnered with research, content, and product teams to investigate the full user journey and reduce friction.
AE 1.0: Too complex to trust
From interviews and a customer survey post-launch, we discovered that users didn't really understand how AE worked — especially how money was moved and how interest was earned. Even those who activated the feature couldn’t explain it clearly.
Key issue: Low motivation to activate AE, high effort to understand of how it worked.
This confusion made customers feel out of control, which damaged trust and retention.
Pilot phase performance reflected the UX issues
Despite strong acquisition, only 24% retained their balance after activation, and 6% turned the feature off within 15 days.
This validated key insight from research: “If customers don’t feel in control or see the benefit clearly, they won’t stay”
Opportunity: We needed to simplify the experience, be more transparent, and increase the perceived value — all while meeting the business goals of improving cash retention and reducing costs.
AE+: A step in the right direction
We explored a new concept: AE 2.0, which removed the “two jars” model (Current Account + AE) and introduced a single balance where all cash was auto-allocated behind the scenes.
We tested 2 concepts:
- Advanced Mode: Up to 1.75% interest; CD as underlying assets; spend as usual
- Optimized Mode: Up to 4% interest with third-party assets; with expected delay in spending due to these assets
What worked:
- Customers liked the 1-jar model — it was easier to understand.
- A single stream of earnings, paid monthly, was more simple and accepted.
- People were willing to accept slightly lower interest for a better experience.
What didn’t:
- Third-party involvement made some users uncomfortable.
- Manual processes (like loan settlement when spending from investment assets) created friction and concern over loss of control.
These tests helped us balance between simplicity, return rate, and customer trust.
Designing AE+: The 1-jar experience
Using all these insights, we introduced a refined version: Auto-Earning Plus (AE 3.0).
Design Principles:
- Simple & Effortless: No need to manage the details — just activate and let it work.
- Don’t Make Me Think: The bank should do the heavy lifting. Customers should feel in control without extra steps.
Two critical dilemmas:
(1) The Transparency–Simplicity Trade-off
Many users struggled to understand how AE 1.0 worked — especially how their money was earning interest and when returns would appear. They wanted clarity. But full transparency came at a cognitive cost: detailed investment breakdowns, complex sweep mechanisms, and multiple earning streams were overwhelming.
So we had to ask: How much transparency is too much?
We took a layered approach:
- Default view: Focused on what matters most — total balance and expected earnings. No jargon. No charts. Just the essentials.
- Advanced settings: For customers who wanted the breakdown, we provided it — tucked away, not front and center.
This way, we respected the user's desire for transparency without burdening everyone with complexity. We made transparency available, but not intrusive.
<Tested concept/ Final solution>
(2) The Autonomy-Control Dilemma
Some customers wanted full control over how their money was allocated. Others preferred a hands-off, automated approach.
This posed a clear trade-off: autonomy offers control, but demands effort; automation is simple, but less transparent.
Final design direction
We chose to focus on simplicity seekers — customers who valued ease over control. Auto-Earning Plus was meant to be effortless, so the experience was fully automated with a single balance and one monthly payout.
For control seekers, manual investment tools remained a better fit. Rather than stretch the product to suit everyone, we optimized for those who wanted the bank to do the work for them.
.
Navigating through this redesign required many tough trade-offs and thoughtful collaboration across teams. The simplicity customers now experience is a result of many invisible decisions made collectively behind the scenes.
What changed in AE+
<img>
We prioritized ease of use over detailed control, based on customer needs. The core value — earning more while spending freely — stayed front and center.
Overcoming technical and legal barriers
Improving the experience meant solving deep challenges behind the scenes:
- Instant Spending: We redesigned the architecture to support advance transactions, even when money was allocated to investment assets.
- Predictable Earnings: Interest was calculated daily and paid monthly — requiring changes in how earnings were stored, tracked, and displayed.
- Legal Simplicity: Instead of asking users to sign with multiple parties, we consolidated legal agreements into a single, bundled T&C.
These invisible improvements removed customer worries and improved trust.
Results
Key Takeaways
- Retention isn’t just a feature problem — it’s a trust and clarity issue.
- Simplicity wins. Customers are willing to trade a bit of control for peace of mind.
- Good design is invisible. AE Plus looks simple, but behind the scenes, it required deep coordination across tech, product, and legal teams.
This project reminded me that delivering a great product experience means sweating the details behind the scenes so that customers don’t have to.
Thoughtful trade-offs require collective alignment. Revisiting the AE experience wasn’t just about refining UX — it meant navigating business priorities, legal constraints, technical limitations, and user expectations together. Cross-functional input and diverse stakeholders’ involvement was essential for making the right calls.