Intuit | Control Spending Focus Group Findings

Control Spending Mini Focus Group Findings

February/March 2005

Presented to: QPFG Leadership Team

Authors: Ken Pappas
Beth Goldman
Hector Lopez
Suzanne Pellican

Version: 1.0
Date: 22 March 2005

Table of Contents

Control Spending Mini Focus Group Findings 1
Table of Contents 1
1 Executive Summary 2
1.1 Overview 2
1.2 General Findings 2
1.3 Recommended Scope for Version 1 5
1.4 Surprises 6
1.5 How do Abandoners Differ from New Users? 8
2 Methodology 10
3 Jobs & Outcomes 12
3.1 Jobs 12
3.2 Outcomes 13
4 Concepts 15
4.1 Concept R 15
4.2 Concept G 18
4.3 Concept B 20
4.4 Concept Results 22
5 Constraints 24
6 Secondary Jobs 25
7 Subscription Issues 26
8 Answers to Specific Questions 27
8.1 Level of Categorization 27
8.2 Payee vs. Category 27
8.3 Calendar View 27
8.4 Bucket View 27
8.5 Family Grouping 28
8.6 Event Grouping 28
8.7 Traditional Budget 28
8.8 Types of Charts 28
8.9 Checking Account Balances 28
8.10 Top Features 28
8.11 Time Periods 29
8.12 Monitoring Debt 29
8.13 Monitoring Savings 29
8.14 New Features 30
9 User Types 31
10 Appendix 1: Value Ratings for Tested Concepts 1

Control Spending Mini Focus Group Findings |3/22/20005 Intuit Confidential | 1

11 Appendix 2: Control Household Spending Job and Process Steps 2
12 Appendix 3: Outcome Opportunity Scores – Concept B vs. G 3

1 Executive Summary

1.1 Overview
The main focus of this research was to further validate the unmet need around the job:
“Control Household Spending”. Solution concepts were developed and shown to participants
to evaluate to what extent we needed to solve the job, how well we could solve it, and to
determine if our solutions have a durable advantage.

Methodology

A total of 14 mini focus groups were conducted in the Bay Area, Omaha, and Denver over a
three week period. Three concepts were presented to participants to identify how successful
they were in satisfying the high-level job, process steps, and desired outcomes identified.

Objectives

Following are the specific objectives we were trying to achieve through this research:
1. Do the concepts satisfy the customer job of “Controlling Household Spending?”
• Is the process step of “see where I spend my money” enough for version 1 or do we
need to solve the additional needs around planning and comparing to a plan?
2. Begin accumulating data to validate our assumptions about the secondary jobs around
controlling spending. Uncover any jobs that are missing and try to determine their level of
priority.
3. Understand web vs. desktop from the user perspective.
4. Do people find value in this solution as a subscription service? Can they make the leap
from it being a one-time software purchase to a subscription service delivered through
software?
5. Do the concepts help people communicate with others about spending?

1.2 General Findings

Is there a big, unmet need?

We determined that people have the need to control their household spending. In order to
solve this job, people also need to be able to do the following:
» See where my money is going.
» Plan future spending.


The primary goal for controlling household spending is to save more money. We found that
people tend to control their spending using some form of a budget. Although creating and
maintaining a budget is not exciting for people and the job is optional (unlike paying bills),
this type of system was very pervasive. People used their systems when they felt it was
necessary to get their spending under control, to improve their spending behavior, and
ultimately to achieve their savings goals.

Participants expressed the need for a system that was simple, easy to use, required little effort
to keep up-to-date, and had the detail they needed to track fixed and variable spending in a
way that made sense to them. Their main pain points were around tracking actual spending
against budget, either because their current system did not accommodate this, or because they
found the task of manually entering their actual spending too tedious. Participants generally
saved all receipts and entered them at some point in time in order to populate their system
with transactions. People who were unsatisfied with their systems were mostly unhappy with
the amount of time it took to manage their system and keep their records up-to-date.

Participants considered bills part of their spending and wanted to track whether or not the
bills had been paid using the system. This was accomplished implicitly in the concepts
presented by showing the actual amount spent for each bill. It is important to note, however,
that participants had no expectation of being able to perform other jobs relating to paying bills
because of this.

Can we solve the job well?

Satisfaction scores for the concepts indicate we can solve the need well. With an average
increase in value of 126%, participants indicated that the concepts solved the job significantly
better than their existing solutions (see Appendix 1: Value Ratings for Tested Concepts).

Concept B (which used a traditional budget metaphor to show a complete view of
spending) including Ins vs. Outs and “Leftover” had an increase in value of 169%.
Concept G (which used “buckets” with budgets to show spending by category) had an
increase in value of 139%. Concept R (which showed spending by payee only using a
calendar metaphor) did not resonate as well with participants as it was seen to align more
closely with RBBP jobs than Control Spending.

The concepts differed from Quicken in that they had no register, no reconciling, and no
account-centric structure. The participants did not have a need for this type of structure
and were satisfied with the navigation models presented in the Concepts G and B.

Concept B was the preferred concept. However, when taking into consideration whether or
not the participants would buy the concept they preferred, Concept G was equally favored.


One Abandoner stated: “I chose B even though I love the buckets. It does everything I need to
do. This would have exceeded my expectations if it was in Quicken.” Another participant
preferred Concept G, stating “I liked the buckets. It seemed more fun out of all [the
concepts].”

Is there a durable advantage?

The concepts presented were better at solving the job of controlling household spending than
the participants’ current solutions. More than 80% of the respondents indicated that the
concepts solved the job Better or Much Better than their existing solution. The most common
solutions people had for tracking their spending were budgets – either on the computer or on
paper. The budgets varied in level of detail, but most included fixed spending (i.e. bills) and
categorized, variable spending.

The concepts are also better than other alternatives, including FI Spending Reports and
Personal Finance Software such as Quicken or Money. The main advantages this service has
over the participants’ paper-based systems or Excel spreadsheet budgets, FI Spending
Reports, and Personal Finance Software (Quicken and Money) are that:
» Data is downloaded so people don’t have to do a lot of manual entry. This is important to
many people. For example, one participant remarked: “I’m not really satisfied [with my
system]. It’s not really time efficient. I need to be able to click and go.”
» Users don’t have to come up with the system in the first place.
» Participants feel the new solution can be more accurate since they don’t have to work with
the structure of the worksheet which could lead to problems with formulas.
» Categories are customizable so people can see spending in a way that makes sense to
them. This is important to many people. A participant who was concerned about this said,
“I use the categories from the bank [Wells Fargo] site, but it doesn’t do what I need it to. I
have a big fat notebook and weekly I take all the receipts consolidate them and calculate
total spending in each category.”
» A complete view of spending can be captured by aggregating data from multiple FIs.
» The solution is focused and does not overwhelm users with unnecessary features. One
Abandoner commented: “Quicken was really regimented and I knew I wouldn’t have the
discipline to do everything it required.”

User Types

Our research elicited two main user types: Focused Fred and Budgeting Bart (see Section 11 –
User Types). Focused Freds tended to like Concept G and Budgeting Barts preferred Concept B.
The main difference between these users is the level of complexity, and number of features
they desire. Both User Types have the same need to control their spending, plan their future
spending, and save money, so we recommend targeting both.


1.3 Recommended Scope for Version 1
We recommend developing one solution that combines the traditional budget features
and month-to-month comparison of Concept B and the graphical category buckets of
Concept G to cover the needs of the two User Types identified: Focused Freds and
Budgeting Barts.

Although we could provide two separate products, presenting one solution as a starter
version with a migration path to the more comprehensive solution, we are confident that
one solution can meet the needs of both User Types because:
» Participants in the focus groups often asked for features from both concepts.
» The outcome scores indicated that there is an opportunity to create an even better offering
than either of the concepts by borrowing the best from both.

Our findings show that we can successfully solve for people who:
» Are just getting started and have not used a system before
» Currently use some form of a budget in paper-based or Excel form
» Have abandoned a Personal Finance Software solution

Business Model

We recommend selling a Control Spending solution as a subscription service. During the
study, all solutions were presented as web-based subscription models. Participants
overwhelmingly accepted the subscription model and even suggested that it made sense
given the value provided by the service to aggregate spending data from multiple sources.
When asked how much they would be willing to pay, most participants volunteered a
monthly subscription fee between $5 and $15.

Platform

No clear direction was given by participants on whether this should be web-based or desktop
service. The need to be able to access this information any time, anywhere to indicate that the
service should be web-based was not identified. However, some participants, especially
outside of the Bay Area, expressed security concerns about having all of their data aggregated
in one place online. For example, one participant stated: “I don’t want all of my information in
one place online. That scares me. It doesn’t mean I wouldn’t use it. I think it would be very
beneficial, but I would need a lot of assurance that my info would be protected.” These
participants perceived that if their data was on their desktop, it would be more secure and less
susceptible to hackers than if it were available online. Also, Abandoners were more
comfortable with a desktop solution than a web-based offering, likely due to their past


experience and expectations. People who weren’t as concerned about security did not see a
problem with the solution being offered as an online service.

Features

» Data Entry
• Automatically download all their spending transactions from FIs and credit card
companies (e.g. debit card transactions, credit card transactions, checking account
debits, and ATM withdrawals)
• Auto-categorization of most transactions
• Learned categorization for manual categorizations
• Ability to manually enter cash transactions
• Ability to split transactions
» Tracking
• Overall view of spending by category (pie chart)
• Ability to view spending for any given month or range of months
• Ability to view spending by user-defined categories
• Ability to view transactions by payee
• Ability to view spending details by “fixed spending” payees
• Ability to view a trend of past spending by Category & Payee
• Month-to-month spending comparison against plan
• “Leftover” chart showing income vs. spending and leftover amount
» Planning
• Ability to set budgets for specific categories
• Ability to set budgets for all fixed (e.g. bills) and variable spending categories
» Interaction
• Ability to drag and drop transactions into categories.
» Traditional Budget View
• Ability to show “ins” minus “bills” minus “variables” to equal “leftover”
• Ability to view budget by month or year

1.4 Surprises
During our research we identified a number of things that we found to be surprising.
» Communicating with Household Members
The outcome related to communicating spending with household members was given
a low opportunity rating by participants. This is different than what was seen during
the Contextual Inquiries, where participants indicated they used their systems to
communicate with their spouses. Communication received top-2 box from only half of


the respondents, whereas the top outcomes received top-2 box scores from nearly all
the respondents.

» Changing Spending Methods
In order to get the benefits of the solution, some people said they’d be willing to
change their spending methods from using their debit card instead of cash. According
to one participant, “Using a system like this would probably convert me over to
using credit card [instead of cash] to minimize the amount of data entry.”

» Cash Spending
A lot of people said they used cash for much of their spending. This often came up
unprompted and was many people’s initial concern of getting information into the
service. This is a geographical difference – it was more common in the mid-west than
in the Bay Area.

» Credit Card Debt
A lot of the people said they weren’t in credit card debt and said they pay off the
credit card every month.

» Splits
Participants talked about the importance of being able to split from large retailers like
Walmart, Costco, and Target, where purchases can span multiple categories. They would
prefer this to happen automatically and perceive this as attainable because the
information exists somewhere.

» Recruiting
There was an issue with being able to recruit the right type of person for this testing.
We found that a sizable number of people who passed the screener actually were
targets of the RBBP service. After probing, we were able to determine that people
interpret phrases about seeing where they spend their money differently. One group
of people interpreted it in the way we expected – breakdowns of categories and totals
of what was spent in those categories. The second group interpreted seeing where
their money was going as tracking their spending and knowing how much they spent
as part of the process of paying their bills.

This could have implications for sizing the market and for messaging. The Abandoner
research indicated that approximately 75% of the people who abandoned were trying
to see where their money was going. The assumption was that these people could be
satisfied with a compelling Control Spending offering. However, some of the 75% of
Abandoners could potentially require a Real Balance Bill Pay solution. More research


needs to be conducted to determine the answer to this question to help size the
market opportunity and to communicate the right message to attract the right
customers.

» Online Bill Pay
A majority of the people we saw did online banking but not bill pay.
1.5 How do Abandoners Differ from New Users?
Abandoners said things that were consistent with the Abandoner research. Overall, the
important Jobs & Outcomes for Abandoners were not very different than those for non-
Personal Finance Software users. Qualitatively, the Abandoners thought that the solutions
presented during the focus groups solved what they were what they were looking for when
they originally tried Quicken or Money.

The top reasons participants had for abandoning the product were that:
» Too much time was required to keep their systems updated because the majority of the
people weren’t connected. A lot of people said that they would get behind and then it
would take too long to catch up.
» Quicken was too complicated and had too many features – too many “whiz-bang” things.
An example of how Abandoners articulated this is: “I knew I wouldn’t have the level of
discipline to do what it required.”

Abandoner Concept Preference

Every Abandoner rated their preferred concept. 64% of them rated the preferred concept as
much better than their current solution, and 36% rated the preferred concept as better. Half of
them chose B and half chose G.

Abandoner Top Features

Abandoners overwhelmingly chose category budgets as the top rated feature. This differs
from non-abandoners who favored a traditional budget and month-to-month comparisons
over this feature, which was rated 3rd for the overall group. Some interesting analysis has
shown that Abandoners picked category budgets, the bucket view and debt balance much
higher than Non-abandoners for their top feature. The hypothesis, though not conclusive, is
that Abandoners learned from experiences that a traditional budget would be difficult so they
wanted to use a simpler method for tracking their spending.

Abandoner Jobs & Outcomes

Abandoner scores for Jobs and Outcomes are no different than the overall sample. They found
similar value in Concepts B and G but they found negative value in Concept R.


Abandoner - Other Findings

» All of the Abandoners used online banking so they may be more apt to try a web-based
service.
» All of the Abandoners would replace their current system compared to 2/3 of Non-
abandoners who would replace theirs.
» An expectation from a few of the Abandoners was that this would be a desktop/one time
purchase model.


2 Methodology

A total of 14 mini-focus groups were conducted with 3 people per group. Two pilots were
conducted in the Bay Area, 5 groups in Omaha, 4 groups in Denver, and a final 3 groups in
the Bay Area. Before beginning the session, participants filled out a Jobs/Outcomes survey for
their current system. At the beginning of the session, each participant was asked about his or
her current system for tracking spending, their motivations, and pain points. Three concepts
were presented and discussed individually with a follow-up survey after each. All the
concepts were presented as monthly subscription web-based services. The order in which the
concepts were presented was rotated after each group. At the end of the session, participants
completed a wrap-up survey that asked participants to choose the concept they would most
like to use.

We saw 11 Abandoners during the study, which represented nearly 1/3 of the participants in
the focus groups. We did this to ensure that we could solve the needs of our primary target
and to determine whether their needs differed from non-Personal Finance Software users.

After we reviewed learnings from the Pilots and Omaha sessions, we removed one concept
from the research (R) and focused on 2 concepts. (R set unrealistic expectations for users that
they were going to be able to do bill pay jobs and is the reason we decided to remove it.) At
this point in the study, concept G was always shown first. The thought behind this was that
Concept B was more of a traditional budget and it had more types of features – we wanted to
see if Concept G would be enough of an improvement over their current system for a version 1
service and were concerned that if they saw B first we might not know the answer to this. For
more information please refer to the Moderator Guide, the Recruiting Screener , and Jobs and
Outcomes Surveys.

There were some instances where there were fewer than 3 people in a group. This occurred
when there were “no-shows” or when a participant ended up not fitting the target profile and
was removed during the session. In the case where a participant didn’t fit in the target profile,
his or her quantitative data was removed from the analysis. We saw a total of 41 people and
used the data from 32 participants. The participants were people who were interested in
seeing where their money was going and they were not using Quicken or Money (for more
details refer to the Screener).

There are a few things to keep in mind when reviewing the survey data in this findings report.
» Any numbers presented here are strictly for directional purposes. Since this was not a
quantitative study, the sample size is much too small to come to any strong conclusions
based on the numbers alone.


» This is qualitative research. The discussions could have influenced how participants wrote
about or scored features, outcomes, or jobs on the surveys.
» Customers were reacting to paper prototypes not actual software. This is only the third
focus group study we’ve done using this methodology and we’re not sure how these
results translate to the actual completed product/service.
» During qualitative research of this type, there are occasionally people who have difficulty
answering questions around the usage/outcomes that they expect to get from a concept.
Instead, they gravitate towards what they like and can amount to a popularity contest.
While a lot of people were torn between B and G, sometimes it was not the overall
functionality of a concept that won them over, but a very specific feature. For example, a
person that really loved pie charts might fixate on that and choose Concept B even though
the overall concept might not work for them as well as G. In the same regard, a person
might like pictures so they’d choose B simply because of that fact.


3 Jobs & Outcomes

3.1 Jobs
During our research, participants rated the importance and satisfaction of eight jobs. The jobs
and their relationships to each other can bee seen in Appendix 2: Control Household
Spending Job and Process Steps.

Job Opportunity Scores
Jobs OS Index
Increase the amount of money
being saved 17.6 1.4
Discover new opportunities to
save money 16.5 1.3
Plan future spending 16.3 1.3
C ontrol household spending 15.9 1.2
See where household money is
going 15.3 1.2
Reduce or eliminate debt 14.1 1.1
Prepare for tax time 10.0 0.8
C ommunicate spending with
others 9.2 0.7

The following summarizes our findings related to Jobs and Outcomes:
» “Control household spending” is an important job. It has a high opportunity score relative
to the other jobs tested with respondents. Even though “Control household spending” did
not receive the highest opportunity score, the team believes that the job is a process step
for achieving the top jobs. Pursuing an offering that helps customers control household
spending would help people:
• Discover new opportunities to save money
• Increase the amount of money being saved.

The implication from a marketing perspective is to use the higher level jobs to
communicate the benefits of the product to customers.

» The two top jobs relate to saving. While the sample in our study is not statistically
significant, the research suggests there may be an opportunity to provide an offering
specifically designed to help people save more. This corresponds with the Strategyn
research, which recommended pursuing an offering focused on savings.
» Increasing savings is more important to users than reducing debt. This corresponds with
the findings in the Brand Health Tracker and the Strategyn research.
» Preparing for tax time received a lower opportunity score overall, but was important for
the subset of respondents who were self-employed. This finding corresponds with the
Abandoner Research and the Control Spending Customer Inquiries.


3.2 Outcomes
Participants rated the importance and satisfaction of 29 outcomes.

Job Opportunity Scores, Highlighting Top & Bottom Outcomes

Outcomes OS
Top Increase likelihood of achieving financial goals 17.6
Outcomes Increase likelihood of increasing savings 17.6
Increase likelihood of identifying opportunities to
reduce spending 17.5
Increase likelihood of having money left to spend 17.5
Minimize likelihood of accruing debt 16.9
Minimize likelihood of spending more than I want to 16.1
Increase likelihood of being able to meet future
financial obligations 16.1
Minimize time determining how much money will be
left after meeting financial obligations 15.3
Increase likelihood of feeling progress is being made
against plan 15.1
Minimize time to review spending 15.0
Increase likelihood of seeing spending in a way that
makes sense to me 14.8
Increase likelihood of reducing or eliminating debt 14.7
Increase likelihood of achieving spending goals 14.7
Increase likelihood of remembering where money
was spent 14.5
Minimize time to find opportunities to reduce spending
14.2
Minimize time to document past spending 14.2
Increase likelihood of spending guilt-free 14.1
Increase confidence in spending decisions 13.9
Minimize time to plan future spending 13.7
Minimize time to determine progress against debt or
savings goals 13.5
Minimize likelihood of spending more than I make 13.3
Minimize time to organize spending into meaningful
groupings 12.7
Bottom Increase likelihood of feeling more responsible about
Outcomes spending 11.8
Minimize time to determine trends in spending 11.5
Minimize time to determine if I have overspent 10.7
Increase likelihood of communicating more effectively
about spending with members of the household
9.6
Minimize arguments about spending 8.2
Increase ability to show household members their
actual spending 8.1
Increase likelihood of curbing spending of other
members of the household 7.9
Other: Please specify 0.4


Top Outcomes

The Top Outcomes, highlighted in the table above, illustrates the outcomes with the highest
opportunity for all the focus group participants as a whole. There are differences depending
on the User Type (described in detail in the User Types section). Overall:
» The top outcomes received top-2 box scores in importance from nearly all respondents.
» The majority of respondents indicated that they were not satisfied with their current
solution.
» The top three outcomes suggest respondents are primarily interested in finding ways to
achieve financial goals, increase savings, and identify opportunities to reduce spending.
» Increasing the likelihood of increasing savings is slightly more important than minimizing
the likelihood of accruing debt and much more important than increasing the likelihood
of reducing or eliminating debt. While most respondents indicated a high opportunity to
increase savings, the relative opportunity to reduce debt varies depending on the user
type (refer to User Types).

Bottom Outcomes

The Bottom Outcomes, highlighted in the table above, illustrates the outcomes with the lowest
opportunity for all the focus group participants as a whole. It was found that:

» Communicating with members of the household scored low. This was a surprise for the
team given the number of respondents, from the Contextual Inquiries, who indicated they
used their systems to communicate with their spouses. Comparing the importance and
satisfaction scores for communication versus the top outcomes in general reveals a large
difference in the number of respondents who gave top-2 box scores. The top outcomes
received top-2 box scores from nearly all the respondents. Communication received top-2
box from only half of the respondents. The four outcomes related to communication are:
• Increase likelihood of communicating more effectively about spending with members
of the household.
• Minimize arguments about spending.
• Increase ability to show household members their actual spending.
• Increase likelihood of curbing spending of other members of the household.

» Two time-related outcomes also appeared in the bottom outcomes. Both of these
outcomes: Minimize time to determine trends in spending, and Minimize time to
determine if I have overspent, supports the conclusion that the pain point around time is
in getting the data into the system and not about the time to get information from the
data.


4 Concepts

Three concepts were developed for this research. Two of the concepts, R and G were not
designed to completely stand on their own as a solution to address all the identified
outcomes. They were presented to test specific features and metaphors. Concept B was
developed to address the majority of the outcomes while using a traditional budget metaphor.

All three concepts were presented with the same basic foundation and had the following high-
level features:
» Automatically downloads transactions from FIs (Credit Card, Debit Card)
» Auto-categorization of most transactions
» Learned categorization for manual categorizations
» Ability to manually enter cash transactions
» Ability to view transactions by payee
» Ability to view spending for any given month or range of months

Unlike Quicken, none of the concepts were account-centric. All concepts were described as a
monthly subscription web-based service. The service would allow customers to log in to a
secure site that would access their bank or credit card web sites so they could view all their
spending in one place. They would receive the same level of auto-categorization that is seen
on end of year credit card statements.

4.1 Concept R
Concept R focused on 2 unique items from the other concepts. The main metaphor for
Concept R was the use of a calendar to track spending. In addition, spending by Payee only
vs. by Category was used to help people see their spending. Following are the unique features
for Concept R:
» Ability to view spending totals by day, week, pay period or month
» National average indicator
» Ability to filter view to show spending by a single payee
» Ability to view pay period indicators on calendar
» Ability to view trend of past spending by pay period
» Ability to view past trend of past spending by month (month selector)


Concept R Screenshots

Main Calendar View

Main Calendar View Filtered by Payee (Starbucks)


Mail Calendar View with Transactions Details Callout

Pay Period View with Transaction Details


4.2 Concept G
Concept G focused on using a “bucket” metaphor for categories that people would use to see
their spending. The category “buckets” allowed customers to define a planned amount to
spend for each category. This was not considered a complete budget because it was only
meant to capture categories that the person was interested in tracking. In addition, Concept G
had two additional features around cross-referencing information that required manual
categorization. The Family View allowed people to see how much different members of the
family were spending each month. The Event View allowed people to set a plan for an event
like a vacation or a wedding and track expenses towards it. The Event View could also be
repurposed to capture savings goals. Following are the unique features for Concept G:
» Ability to view spending by user-defined categories
» Ability to view category spending against plan/target
» Ability to view spending by family members
» Ability to view event spending against plan/target
» Ability to drag and drop transactions into category, family member, and event “buckets”

Concept G Screenshots

Main Category “Bucket” View


Selected Category with Transaction Details

“Family Member” View with Transaction Details – showing drag & drop functionality


“Event” View with Transaction Details – showing drag & drop functionality

4.3 Concept B
Concept B focused on a more traditional type of budget and was formatted similar to a
spreadsheet. The concept also tried to address monthly spending comparisons. In addition, it
showed people what their expected “leftover” amount was as the month came to an end.
Graphs of savings and debt were also introduced to see the importance of these jobs to the
new service. Following are the unique features for Concept B:
» “Leftover” chart showing income vs. spending and leftover amount
» Savings balance
» Debt balance
» Overall view of spending by category (pie chart)
» Ability to view spending details by “fixed spending” payees
» Ability to view spending details by user-defined categories, including a trend of past
spending
» Explicit separation of fixed vs. variable spending with ability to set target/plan amounts
for each fixed spending payee or category
» Ability to view budget by pay period, month, or year
» Month-to-month spending comparison against plan


Concept B Screenshots

Spending Overview with “Leftover”, Savings, & Debt Graphs

Spending Details for Selected Category


Budget View with Comparison Flag On & Transaction Details Callout

4.4 Concept Results

Overview

Each concept had its share of people who were enthusiastic about it. Overall, B with elements
of G was the solution that was found to deliver best on the key outcomes. This falls in line
with the outcome-based questionnaires that were given for each concept. Directionally, all the
concepts were able to improve the satisfaction scores more than the 25% necessary to indicate
a successful service. Concept R was shown to 9 groups and raised the outcome scores by 54%.
Concept G was shown to all 14 groups and raised the outcome scores by 125% over their
current system. Concept B was shown to all 14 groups and raised the outcome scores by 162%
over their current system. For more detail, view the spreadsheets for Concept B and Concept
G.

Overall, participants agreed that:
» Concept B would be better at helping to increase savings.
» Concept G would be better at helping them have money left to spend. This is interesting
considering that Concept B was specifically organized around inflows, outflows, and
“leftover”.


Concept R

Concept R was popular primarily due to the familiarity of the calendar metaphor and its
association with personal finances. However, as we probed, we determined that the metaphor
was closely associated with paying bills (a RBBP Job), but not necessarily for tracking
spending. We also found that this concept required a level of accuracy regarding transactions
showing up on the actual day spent rather than when they cleared. This was a constraint that
we didn’t think we could solve for a V1 service. The Payee view of information did turn out to
be something people found useful, but many found the lack of a category view to be
problematic.

Concept G

Concept G helped us determine that categories are a necessity for the service. It also helped us
determine that people need to have a plan against a category and a way to see how they are
doing against the plan. (During the first few groups, we used the average spending for the
plan but found that this wasn’t useful enough for users.) The concept gave us insight into the
fact that a big benefit of using a service like this is to save time on the tedious tasks of data
entry. People understood that they would need to do more work to take advantage of the
Family and Event Views, and most did not find the features compelling enough to do the
extra work. Participants did, however find the drag and drop functionality for categorizing
transactions very useful. People often wanted to combine the Bucket View and the Calendar
View into one service.

Concept B

Concept B was also popular especially for the participants who had a system that looked like
a traditional budget. This matched people’s perceptions of a budget and month-to-month
comparisons resonated well with most people. People that liked to look at numbers found the
layout to be easier to read. This concept gave more views of the data than the other concepts
and was able to satisfy more of the outcomes because of this. Participants also liked the way
fixed spending was broken out from variable spending categories and allowed them to view a
list of their bills, which mapped to the way they implemented their systems. It is important to
note when evaluating the concept preference results that that Concept G could accommodate
the ability to show a list of bills through the creation of a “Bills” Category “bucket” but it was
not presented in that way. Including a category for Bills in Concept G could have resulted in a
higher preference rating for that concept.


5 Constraints

Following is a list of the constraints that were identified during the research:
» Security Concerns
This was the biggest constraint we ran up against and we saw concerns of varying
levels. The fact that this concept was described as a place to aggregate all the
information seemed to hit a sore spot for people. It was the combination of data
aggregation and that the data was online that made people feel vulnerable. By having
all their information in one place, they thought that “someone” could get at ALL their
information from hacking into this system. During the sessions that a desktop
connected model was discussed, people had less concern over security and were more
willing to accept this kind of solution. In Omaha, people had very strong reactions to
this being a web application. In Denver, there was still concern but it was not quite as
strong a reaction. The Bay Area had modest concerns.

» Privacy
Employees of the solution provider can’t access and/or see customer’s data.
Perception of whether the data is secure is a major factor in this constraint.

» Web vs. Desktop
Two issues came up during this part of the conversation.
• Most people were concerned about security when it came to a Web-based solution.
• For a minority of users, records need to be maintained on their own computer.

» Connectivity
The solution needs to be able to connect to and access data from all of a person’s
financial institutions. They will not be willing to change banks or credit cards to use
this service.

» Credibility
The service must be from a credible company with a strong brand. It cannot be a fly-
by-night or a dot.com. A few people said that they would want to get this service
from their bank.

» Required Additional Features:
• Splits
• Ability to set different budget amounts for any category for any month.


6 Secondary Jobs

One main related job was identified during our research regarding tax preparation. For some
customers it was a requirement (especially self-employed people) and for others it would be
considered a delighter. Other typical personal finance jobs came up at some point in time, but
the only thing that stood out was the job of tracking for taxes. It is important to note that this
job could have been more “top of mind” for participants because the research was conducted
during tax season.


7 Subscription Issues

Acceptance of a subscription model was not the emphasis of this round of testing; however
we did attempt to gather some initial data when the opportunity existed. The concepts were
described from the outset as a subscription service. People seemed willing to consider paying
for the service as a subscription. However, there were a handful of people from different
groups who didn’t see the difference between this service and a one-time purchase software
package. This was especially true in the groups where there was discussion of having a
desktop connected version of the service.

Most respondents (36 out of 49) indicated they would be willing to pay a monthly
subscription. While the price ranges mentioned varied significantly from $1 to $29 per month,
most respondents fell within $5-15 range. For participants who answered “yes” to the
question “Would you use the system?”
» 30 respondents indicated they would be willing to pay $6 or more per month.
» 18 respondents indicated they would be willing to pay between $1 and $9.
» 18 respondents indicated they would be willing to pay between $10 and $16+.


8 Answers to Specific Questions

8.1 Level of Categorization
People needed different levels of categorization. This didn’t seem to be dependant on
their user type, but had more to do with a particular person’s view of the world. Some
people simply think that if they are going to track spending, they want to do it to a
detailed level, otherwise why bother? Whether they’d really find the minutiae important
is debatable. It was very obvious that in order for the service to be valuable, people will
need to be able to “split” transactions. The issue of a Wal-Mart or Target transaction
having individual purchases that fall into different categories was top of mind for a large
percentage of people and usually came up unprompted. Most people wanted to have as
many categories as they want. Generally speaking, people were fine with 12 categories,
however we should continue to study this in future studies to figure out the best solution
for our default categories. Some people wanted even more detailed auto-categorization –
see the section on new features for more information on this.

Subcategories – We may be able to get away without having them for version 1. When
probed, the majority of the people would be ok if we didn’t have them. However, we
anticipate needing this in future versions.

8.2 Payee vs. Category
People often liked seeing the breakdown of spending by Payee. It was not as strong a
need as to have the breakdown by category. They didn’t need to have budgets for their
payees but some wanted to see totals by Payee.

8.3 Calendar View
The people who cared about seeing categories didn’t really find this view helpful. The
metaphor made sense to people when it would help with their bill paying (which matches
what we learned with the RBBP testing), but since this version of the calendar was for
historical data it didn’t work well. Participants often thought of this tool as being a
projection of where their checking account would be in the next month which is a job that
RBBP is tackling. The calendar view did have some fans from the various groups usually
because it was a very familiar metaphor rather than because it is an effective way to look
at spending. The people who gravitated towards it seemed to be the type of people who
were concerned with overall totals for their spending as a whole. Often, people wanted to
combine the Bucket View and the Calendar View into one service.

8.4 Bucket View
In general this view worked well for people. However, for people more comfortable with
a spreadsheet type of budget, this view could be found to be either too busy, or to not


have enough detail. Participants saw the value of the different views and the information
that they could get from each. They liked the graphical nature and found it fun. The initial
thought of using the average spending as the definition of the upper limit of the bucket
did not work well since the participants didn’t find the average very useful. However,
setting their own plan amount was very popular and helped people figure out how they
could control what they were spending.

8.5 Family Grouping
This feature was aimed at people who wanted to communicate spending and control
spending for the whole family. This resonated with a couple people, but most found it to
be more work than what it was worth. Some people actually felt that it could hurt
communication because it could be the cause of arguments. This contradicts findings
during the CIs where it was found that people wanted to be able to communicate
spending with household members in order to reduce arguments over spending.

8.6 Event Grouping
Similar to the Family Grouping view, people found it to be too much work for the benefit.
A few people saw some value in tracking vacation spending so that they could plan for
saving for future vacations. Some were confused about the difference between this view
and just doing additional categories. Overall, this feature is not necessary for V1.

8.7 Traditional Budget
The traditional budget went over well for people who were already using this type of
budget. It was tied with month-to-month comparisons as the top-rated feature by
participants. For some people, this was too much detail. People wanted to be able to plan
for one-time expenses or surprise expenses and the year view of the budget could be a
solution for this.

8.8 Types of Charts
There was no consensus on the type of charts or graphs to show. Some people liked the
pie charts so they could see an overall view of where there money is going. The bar charts
seemed to be good for people who were trying to compare spending over time.

8.9 Checking Account Balances
People did not need to know their current balances.

8.10 Top Features
Participants were asked to identify the top 3 features that the system MUST have. Note:
the calendar view was not shown to all the groups. The features were rated as follows:
1 Traditional budget


2 Month-to-month comparison
3 Bucket view
4 Category budgets
5 Calculation of what's left over
6 Savings balance
7 Debt balance
8 Event view
9 Pie charts
10 Calendar view
11 Family view
12 Payee view
13 National average comparison

Top Features for Abandoners

1 Category budgets
2 Traditional budget
3 Bucket view
4 Month-to-month comparison
5 Debt balance
6 Calculation of what's left over
7 Event view
8 Calendar view
9 Family view
10 Payee view
11 Pie charts
12 Nat'l avg comparison
13 Savings balance

8.11 Time Periods
People wanted to look at their data in different time frames, for example, by week, month
or year. Pay period time frames did not resonate with the majority of participants.

8.12 Monitoring Debt
Some participants found this feature interesting, but it was not found to be an
overwhelming need. Monitoring savings was much more important. Monitoring debt is
not crucial for V1.

8.13 Monitoring Savings
The ability to monitor savings was a bigger opportunity than monitoring debt. However,
this feature is more of a delighter than a “must have” for the product.


8.14 New Features
Follow are the new features that were identified during the focus group discussions that
should be considered for Version 1 and future versions of the product/service:
» Ability to set and track against savings goals
» Scanning in receipts
» Manually splitting receipts
» Automatically split receipts from large/conglomerate retailers such as Walmart and
Costco
» Different types of comparisons – week by week, month to month, year to date, by %, total
dollar value, month to same month last year
» Payee subtotals
» Alerts
» Totals for all the buckets
» Reporting tools
» Memos or notes per transaction
» Yearly budget
» Ability to track historical spending for a specific bill
» Ability to forecast spending by category and payee


9 User Types

During the research, User Types emerged: Focused Fred, and Budgeting Bart. In general, Focused
Freds preferred Concept G and Budgeting Barts preferred Concept B. The main difference
between these User Types is the level of complexity and number of features they desire in
their solution. Focused Freds require simpler solutions, but might aspire to become Budgeting
Barts. Both groups are solving for very similar jobs and process steps. We could provide two
separate products to satisfy each User Type. However, many people seemed to like elements
of both concepts and we feel a single solution could satisfy both User Types.

Control Spending User Types

Focused Fred (Prefer Concept G) Budgeting Bart (Prefer Concept B)
Characteristics
Spending Control  Not in Control In Control
Current System • Don’t have a system / need help • Have a comprehensive system but
getting started want to limit the time and effort
• Have a system but want a more required to update it
meaningful way to track spending • Have a system that isn’t
• Example systems: comprehensive enough and want one
o Review FI and credit card that is already figured out for me
statements and calculate • Example systems:
spending mentally o Paper budget
o “Envelope” cash spending o Excel spreadsheet budget
o Write all spending on paper
Spending Decisions • May monitor budget for specific • Compares spending against budget
categories and make informal • Knows where money goes and adjusts
spending adjustments spending to align with available funds
Confidence in Spending • Want to build confidence in making • Confident in making spending
Behavior spending decisions decisions
Wants & Needs
Comprehensiveness  Partial Picture Overall Picture 
Analysis  Simple Complex / Multiple Ways 
Planning  Short Term Long Term 
Experience  Fun Serious 
Tracking • Want to view spending in a way that • Want to see a complete picture of all
makes sense to me income and spending
• Want flexibility to focus only on part • Want to track fixed and variable
of my spending (e.g. problem areas, spending
discretionary only) • Want to see plan against actual in a
standard budget-like way
Differentiating • Increase likelihood of feeling • Minimize likelihood of accruing debt
Outcomes progress is being made against plan • Minimize time to document past
• Increase confidence in spending spending
decisions • Increase likelihood of achieving
• Minimize likelihood of spending more
specific savings goals
than I want to in specific areas
• Increase likelihood of reducing
discretionary spending
• Increase likelihood of reducing or
eliminating debt
Shared outcomes:
» Increase likelihood of achieving financial goals


» Increase likelihood of increasing savings
» Increase likelihood of identifying opportunities to reduce spending
» Increase likelihood of having money left to spend
» Increase likelihood of reducing or eliminating debt

Comparing outcome scores based on which concept participants preferred illustrated the
outcomes that differentiated them (See Appendix 3: Outcome Opportunity Scores – B vs. G).
Respondents who preferred Concept B:
» Were more interested in minimizing the likelihood of getting into debt.
» Were more interested in minimizing time to document spending.
» Were more likely to feel confident about spending decisions in general.
» Were more likely to feel they were already making progress against their plans.
» Were more interested in minimizing the likelihood of accruing debt.

Respondents who preferred Concept G:
» Were more likely to spend time documenting past spending,
» Were less likely to feel confident about spending decisions in general.
» Were less likely to feel they are making progress against plans.
» Were more likely to buy concept G. Nearly all (8 out of 9) who indicated they preferred
concept G also indicated they would be willing to buy concept G. See details in the
Summary Notes.


10 Appendix 1: Value Ratings for Tested Concepts

CURRENT SYSTEM Concept R Concept G Concept B

Value w/current system

Satisfaction w/Concept G
Satisfaction w/Concept R

Satisfaction w/Concept B
Satisfaction w/current

Value w/Concept G
Value w/Concept R

Value w/Concept B
Opportunity Score

Weighting
solution
JOB: "Control household spending"
TOP OUTCOMES:
Increase likelihood of increasing savings 17.6 20% 7.1% 1.4% 35% 2.5% 36% 2.6% 50% 3.6%
Increase likelihood of having money left to spend 17.5 18% 7.1% 1.2% 33% 2.4% 47% 3.3% 38% 2.6%
Minimize likelihood of accruing debt 16.9 31% 6.8% 2.1% 0% 0.0% 29% 1.9% 38% 2.6%
Increase likelihood of identifying opportunities to reduce 17.5 22% 7.1% 1.5% 33% 2.4% 36% 2.5% 69% 4.9%
Increase likelihood of achieving financial goals 17.6 16% 7.1% 1.1% 33% 2.4% 64% 4.6% 64% 4.6%
Minimize likelihood of spending more than I want to 16.1 24% 6.5% 1.5% 35% 2.3% 55% 3.5% 54% 3.5%
Minimize time determining how much money will be left after
meeting financial obligations 15.3 24% 6.2% 1.5% 45% 2.8% 64% 3.9% 75% 4.6%
Increase confidence in spending decisions 13.9 25% 5.6% 1.4% 45% 2.5% 64% 3.6% 68% 3.8%
Increase likelihood of seeing spending in a way that makes 14.8 28% 6.0% 1.7% 65% 3.9% 76% 4.5% 79% 4.7%
Minimize time to plan future spending 13.7 16% 5.6% 0.9% 53% 3.0% 61% 3.4% 64% 3.6%
Minimize time to find opportunities to reduce spending 14.2 22% 5.7% 1.3% 27% 1.5% 52% 3.0% 59% 3.4%
Increase likelihood of reducing or eliminating debt 14.7 29% 5.9% 1.7% 30% 1.8% 38% 2.2% 43% 2.5%
Increase likelihood of feeling progress is being made against 15.1 18% 6.1% 1.1% 40% 2.4% 61% 3.7% 68% 4.1%
Minimize time to document past spending 14.2 16% 5.7% 0.9% 53% 3.1% 64% 3.7% 79% 4.5%
Minimize time to determine if I have overspent 10.7 26% 4.3% 1.1% 53% 2.3% 67% 2.9% 79% 3.4%
Increase likelihood of communicating more effectively about
spending with members of the household 9.6 17% 3.9% 0.6% 45% 1.7% 52% 2.0% 42% 1.6%
Increase likelihood of curbing spending of other members of the 7.9 19% 3.2% 0.6% 20% 0.6% 29% 0.9% 23% 0.7%

sum 247.2 VALUE 21.9% 37.5% 52.3% 58.8%
25% INC REASE 5.5% Increase Increase Increase
TARGET 27.4% in value: 71.4% in value: 138.9% in value: 168.5%


11 Appendix 2: Control Household Spending Job and Process Steps


12 Appendix 3: Outcome Opportunity Scores – Concept B vs. G

Outcomes for B OS Index Outcomes for G OS Index
Increase likelihood of achieving financial goals 19.4 1.3 Increase likelihood of having money left to spend 18.9 1.3
Increase likelihood of increasing savings 18.8 1.3 Increase likelihood of increasing savings 17.8 1.2
Increase likelihood of identifying opportunities to
Minimize likelihood of accruing debt
18.8 1.3 reduce spending 17.8 1.2
Increase likelihood of identifying opportunities
Increase likelihood of achieving financial goals
to reduce spending 18.8 1.3 17.8 1.2
Increase likelihood of having money left to
Increase likelihood of reducing or eliminating debt
spend 18.1 1.2 17.8 1.2
Increase likelihood of reducing or eliminating Increase likelihood of feeling progress is being
debt 17.5 1.2 made against plan 17.8 1.2
Minimize time determining how much money will
Minimize likelihood of accruing debt
be left after meeting financial obligations 16.9 1.1 16.7 1.1
Minimize likelihood of spending more than I want
Minimize time to document past spending
16.7 1.1 to 15.6 1.0
Minimize likelihood of spending more than I Minimize time determining how much money will
want to 15.6 1.0 be left after meeting financial obligations 15.6 1.0
Increase likelihood of seeing spending in a way
Increase confidence in spending decisions
that makes sense to me 15.6 1.0 15.6 1.0
Minimize time to find opportunities to reduce
Minimize time to plan future spending
spending 15.6 1.0 15.0 1.0
Increase likelihood of feeling progress is being Increase likelihood of seeing spending in a way
made against plan 15.6 1.0 that makes sense to me 14.4 1.0
Minimize time to find opportunities to reduce
Minimize time to plan future spending
15.3 1.0 spending 13.3 0.9
Increase confidence in spending decisions
12.5 0.8 members of the household 12.2 0.8
Minimize time to determine if I have overspent 10.7 0.7 Minimize time to determine if I have overspent 11.7 0.8
Increase likelihood of communicating more Increase likelihood of communicating more
effectively about spending with members of the effectively about spending with members of the
household 4.4 0.3 household 7.8 0.5
Minimize time to document past spending
members of the household 2.8 0.2 6.7 0.4


Intuit | Control Spending Focus Group Findings

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Intuit | Control Spending Focus Group Findings

Similar to Intuit | Control Spending Focus Group Findings (20)

More from Beth Goldman

More from Beth Goldman (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Intuit | Control Spending Focus Group Findings