SUPER.COM | REWARDS
Unifying fragmented rewards through guided Missions






Super's rewards system used different names, unlock rules, and redemption paths across surfaces. Users struggled to tell which actions earned rewards and what they would receive. I designed the Missions MVP to show the task, progress, and payoff through one shared interaction model.
Role: Lead product designer, partnering with 2 PMs, 3 engineers, and a researcher
Scope: Rewards system unification and Missions MVP across onboarding, activation, referral, and travel
Contribution: Framed the rewards problem, defined the shared interaction model, and led MVP design and validation
35%
Increase in account linking
11%
Boost in reward engagement
5%+
Inprovement in conversion rates
SOLUTION
One model connected tasks, progress, and payoff
Officers gained a direct feedback path
A Mission model showed the reward and required steps at the start. It tracked progress and displayed the action to use the reward when ready.
Clear starting point



Visible progress


Reward ready


The same model adapted across reward contexts
Referral, activation, and travel had different actions and rewards. Each Mission gave users a familiar way to see the requirement, their progress, and the payoff.
Referral, activation, and travel had different actions and rewards. Each Mission gave users a familiar way to see the requirement, their progress, and the payoff.
Shared Missions hub






Contextual activation


Reusable Mission flows








The hub gathered ongoing and completed Missions. Contextual prompts brought an activation step into the moment it mattered.
The hub gathered ongoing and completed Missions. Contextual prompts brought an activation step into the moment it mattered.
BEHIND THE PRODUCT
Making rewards visible wasnโt enough
The harder problem was helping users understand the required effort, their progress, and the payoff.
PROBLEM
Users could not reliably compare effort with payoff
Similar rewards appeared under different terms and followed different paths to unlock or redeem.
Unifying scattered rewards through guided Missions
SUPER.COM | REWARDS
Unifying scattered rewards through guided Missions
SUPER.COM | REWARDS



21%
21%
Did not understand the rewards system
Did not understand the rewards system
31%
31%
Were dissatisfied with the redemption flow
Were dissatisfied with the redemption flow

The team lacked a shared system view
Mapping the legacy system exposed inconsistent terminology and unresolved questions across offers.
Mapping the legacy system exposed inconsistent terminology and unresolved questions across offers.
We were operating without a clear map
The team also lacked a shared model of how the legacy rewards system worked.
CHALLENGE
Different rewards needed a familiar path to completion
Onboarding, referral, activation, and travel each had their own tasks, rules, and entry points.
The design constraint was to clarify each offer without forcing its mechanics into a single set of terms.
CHALLENGE
Different rewards needed a familiar path to completion
Onboarding, referral, activation, and travel each had their own tasks, rules, and entry points.
The design constraint was to clarify each offer without forcing its mechanics into a single set of terms.
CHALLENGE
The problem wasn't only clarity, it was consistency at scale
Users still needed one clear way to understand what to do, their progress, and the payoff.
Onboarding, referral, and travel each introduced different tasks, rules, and entry points.
CHALLENGE
The problem wasn't only clarity, it was consistency at scale
Users still needed one clear way to understand what to do, their progress, and the payoff.
Onboarding, referral, and travel rewards used different mechanics.
Different reward contexts
Onboarding, activation, referral, and travel introduced different tasks, rules, and entry points.
Shared interaction logic
Each experience needed to make the requirement, progress, and payoff clear.
Reusable core pattern
Future incentives needed to fit without creating another separate reward experience.
FIRST HYPOTHESIS
A shared name could reduce reward noise
I reviewed market patterns and proposed PowerUps as one term for Super's mixed incentives.
I reviewed market reward patterns and proposed PowerUps as a shared term for Superโs mixed incentives.
FIRST HYPOTHESIS
A shared name could reduce reward noise
I reviewed market patterns and proposed PowerUps as one term for Super's mixed incentives.
I reviewed market reward patterns and proposed PowerUps as a shared term for Superโs mixed incentives.
FIRST HYPOTHESIS
A shared name could reduce reward noise
I reviewed market patterns and proposed PowerUps as one term for Super's mixed incentives.
A shared term made Superโs rewards easier to package and talk about.



My hypothesis addressed inconsistent packaging before changing the underlying reward model.
I built an onboarding concept to test whether the shared term helped users understand the reward's value.
EVIDENCE-DRIVEN PIVOT
PowerUps drew attention but left the payoff unclear
The onboarding concept gave rewards a stronger entry point. Participants could follow the steps, yet still questioned the value they would receive.
The onboarding concept gave rewards a stronger entry point. Participants could follow the steps, yet still questioned the value they would receive.







A stronger reward entry point
PowerUps gave rewards more presence in onboarding and made the path to participation easier to follow.
PowerUps gave rewards more presence in onboarding and made the path to participation easier to follow.




The payoff was still unclear
PowerUps improved the packaging, but users still had to decode the payoff.
โIโm still not sure what this gets me. Is it actual cash?โ
โIโm still not sure what this gets me. Is it actual cash?โ
DECISION EVIDENCE
Visible progress reduced uncertainty about the work ahead
In an onboarding A/B test I designed, the visible-progress version had 14%+ more completions.



Progress answered "how far." The rewards model still needed to answer "what next" and "what do I get."
Users looked to the reward card to understand the remaining effort.
Users looked to the reward card to understand the remaining effort.
โWhen I click the card, I expect to see how long it'll take me to earn it.โ
โI expect to see how long it'll take me to earn it.โ
โI expect to see how long it'll take me to earn it.โ
โI expect to see how long it'll take me to earn it.โ
Progress answered "how far." The rewards model still needed to answer "what next" and "what do I get."
Progress answered "how far." The rewards model still needed to answer "what next" and "what do I get."
PRODUCT DECISION
Unifying the reward journey while keeping offers flexible
I led three workshops with Product and Engineering to shape the Missions MVP across four reward contexts.


Reward amounts, task counts, entry points, and qualifying actions could vary by context.
1
1
States the action required to complete the Mission.
States the action required to complete the Mission.
2
2
Shows completed steps and remaining effort.
Shows completed steps and remaining effort.
3
3
Keeps the reward visible before completion.
Keeps the reward visible before completion.
Context variations





Completion state


Across all contexts, each Mission used the same task, progress, and payoff structure. Rewards, task counts, and qualifying actions changed by context.
VALIDATION
Participants understood how to unlock the reward
In usability testing, they connected completing the listed steps with receiving the $20 welcome reward.






โOkay, I see. I unlock the reward once I finish these.โ
โOkay, I see. I unlock the reward once I finish these.โ
Testing supported the clarity of the task-to-reward model. It did not establish long-term engagement, retention, or revenue impact.
Testing supported the clarity of the task-to-reward model. It did not establish long-term engagement, retention, or revenue impact.
MVP SYSTEM
Core rewards formed the MVP; retention and upsell stayed exploratory
The MVP design combined a shared hub, contextual prompts, and Mission flows. All this across onboarding, activation, referral, and travel.
Upsell exploration


Retention exploration


Daily Missions and locked Super+ Missions explored retention and upsell beyond the MVP.
KEY LEARNING
Consistent naming wasn't enough to explain rewards
PowerUps made rewards easier to notice, but users still questioned the payoff. I shifted our validation criteria. I focused on whether users understood the required action, the remaining effort, and the expected payoff.
KEY LEARNING
Consistent naming wasn't enough to explain rewards
PowerUps made rewards easier to notice, but users still questioned the payoff. I shifted our validation criteria. I focused on whether users understood the required action, the remaining effort, and the expected payoff.
Want the full story?
Happy to go deeper in conversation.
Want the full story?
Happy to go deeper in conversation.
Want the full story?
Happy to go deeper in conversation.
Want the full story?
This is a high-level view of the work. Happy to go deeper in conversation.
Up next

MESSAGING EXPLORATION
One term reduced reward noise
A shared term made Superโs rewards easier to package and talk about.
I reviewed market reward patterns and proposed PowerUps as a shared term for Superโs mixed incentives.


The naming scan pointed to one clear move: package mixed incentives under a single, memorable term.
CHALLENGE
The problem wasn't only clarity, it was consistency at scale
Onboarding, referral, and travel each introduced different tasks, rules, and entry points.
Users still needed one clear way to understand what to do, their progress, and the payoff.
Reusable core
Future incentives needed to fit the model without creating a new UX.
Context variation
Each reward context introduced different tasks, rules, and entry points.
Clear user logic
The task, progress, and payoff needed to remain clear at each step.
Super's rewards system used different names, unlock rules, and redemption paths across surfaces. Users struggled to tell which actions earned rewards and what they would receive. I designed the Missions MVP to show the task, progress, and payoff with one shared interaction model.
I designed an in-context feedback flow that captured their assessment beside the alert evidence. Meanwhile, Behavox analysts retained control of model changes.
35%
Inprovement in account linking
11%
Boost in reward engagement
5%+
Increase in conversions
My role and scope
Role: Lead product designer, partnering with 2 PMs, 3 engineers, and a researcher
Scope: Rewards system unification and Missions MVP across onboarding, activation, referral, and travel
Contribution: Framed the rewards problem, defined the shared interaction model, and led MVP design and validation
Super's rewards system used different names, unlock rules, and redemption paths across surfaces. Users struggled to tell which actions earned rewards and what they would receive. I designed the Missions MVP to show the task, progress, and payoff through one shared interaction model.
I helped shift the UX from reward packaging to a reusable task, progress, and payoff model.
35%
Inprovement in account linking
11%
Boost in reward engagement
5%+
Increase in conversions
My role and scope
Product Designer: working with 2 Product Managers, 3 engineers, and one researcher
Scope: Rewards system unification and Missions MVP across onboarding, activation, referral, and travel
Contribution: Framed the rewards problem, defined the shared interaction model, and led MVP design and validation
MVP SYSTEM
Core rewards formed the MVP; retention and upsell stayed exploratory
The MVP design combined a shared hub, contextual prompts, and Mission flows. All this across onboarding, activation, referral, and travel.
Upsell exploration


Retention exploration


Daily Missions and locked Super+ Missions explored retention and upsell beyond the MVP.
KEY LEARNING
Consistent naming wasn't enough to explain rewards
PowerUps made rewards easier to notice, but users still questioned the payoff. I shifted our validation criteria. I focused on whether users understood the required action, the remaining effort, and the expected payoff.
KEY LEARNING
Consistent naming wasn't enough to explain rewards
PowerUps made rewards easier to notice, but users still questioned the payoff. I shifted our validation criteria. I focused on whether users understood the required action, the remaining effort, and the expected payoff.
MVP SYSTEM
Core rewards formed the MVP; retention and upsell stayed exploratory
The MVP design combined a shared hub, contextual prompts, and Mission flows. All this across onboarding, activation, referral, and travel.
Upsell exploration


Retention exploration


Daily Missions and locked Super+ Missions explored retention and upsell beyond the MVP.
MVP SYSTEM
Core rewards formed the MVP; retention and upsell stayed exploratory
The MVP design combined a shared hub, contextual prompts, and Mission flows. All this across onboarding, activation, referral, and travel.
Upsell exploration


Retention exploration


Daily Missions and locked Super+ Missions explored retention and upsell beyond the MVP.
PRODUCT DECISION
Unifying the reward journey while keeping offers flexible
I led three workshops with Product and Engineering to shape the Missions MVP across four reward contexts.


Reward amounts, task counts, entry points, and qualifying actions could vary by context.
1
States the action required to complete the Mission.
2
Shows completed steps and remaining effort.
3
Keeps the reward visible before completion.
Context variations




Completion state


Across all contexts, each Mission used the same task, progress, and payoff structure. Rewards, task counts, and qualifying actions changed by context.





