The Process
Using our existing data as a foundation, I began testing the monetization concept early and in parallel with creating design concepts.
Planning the Research
For this project to be successful, I wanted to collect strong evidence without slowing down the team. My strategy was to gather decisive feedback with minimal delay by testing the concept with two key groups: our existing users (who know our system) and potential new users (with fresh perspectives).
I integrated three research activities directly into the design timeline:
- Initial desk research through our available insights;
- In-product surveying with AppCues to measure the reactions of our existing user base to the monetization idea;
- Usability testing with potential users before committing to hi-fis, to then guide our efforts;
This approach ensured we collected actionable data at every stage, allowing us to confidently advise on the project's future without halting progress.
Initial desk research
I mapped the experience, analyzed market trends, collected insights of past Morressier monetization approaches, and analyzed author’s opinions on their view of paying to promote. The findings were pessimistic: for example, an past attempt to monetize a Morressier library, where authors would pay to host their works, saw only a single $150 payment in the span of 2 months, from an audience of 500-1,000 monthly visitors.
In-product surveying
To gather feedback from in-product authors, my Product Manager and I set up an AppCues prompt within the submission flow. We invited users to discuss the submission process through a direct user interview, aiming to collect data on monetization and UX.
This proved to be a challenge: our rate was quite low, with only 2 users committing to be interviewed and actually showing up to the call, but the data echoed the sentiment already found in my previous desk research.
Usability testing
Lastly, I wrote test scripts and recruited 7 authors through the TestingTime platform, so that they could join remote testing sessions. To streamline user recruitment, I kept tester requirements shallow, targeting only active authors that currently publish proceedings, regardless of their field of studies.
Using a Figma prototype, I designed the test around a realistic submission task, integrating the payment step seamlessly into the process to prevent users from fixating on cost, and to scan their genuine reactions to the "pay-to-promote" idea, gathering data on both usability and purchase intent.
Key Learnings
Payment is a barrier, not a feature
As reproduced in my desk research, authors reject the premise of paying to submit, viewing it as an unfair barrier. One user stated it plainly: "I don't really like the idea of paying a fee and it sometimes prevents me from submitting my abstract." This fee creates immediate friction and resentment, especially for rejected work.
Monetization in an academic space isn’t linear
The decision to pay to submit to a conference isn’t always personal: sometimes institutional hurdles come into play, and authors must navigate limited funds and secure approvals, with budgets often only covering accepted papers, not submission fees. Authors also have to think about general conference costs (travel, food).
Authors trust established vendors
Platform trust is weak since authors expect to be redirected to payment pages belonging to trusted vendors (Stripe, Paypal) instead of the internal payment method we tested.
UX improvement opportunities
We understood that authors need an flow that allows them to work with speed and focus, but with forgiving tools to correct mistakes in the process. Clear terminology and in-context guidelines were also welcomed, as they enhance the quality of author submissions.
These learnings forged a clear path forward: resources invested in improving the submission flow’s UX are more likely to have a positive return on product value and user satisfaction & retention over creating monetization flows in PM. I compiled the data into a report, shared it with our teams on crossfunctional Slack channels, and then presented the findings to key stakeholders, providing the evidence needed to prioritize UX improvements over new monetization flows.