PARCELEX · FINTECH · B2B2C · 2022
Simplifying how credit denials are communicated
By Ana Flavia Maestri
How analyzing support tickets guided the classification of credit denials, the rewriting of product messages and the structuring of self-service at Parcelex.
- in ticket time in the pipeline
−15.6%
in ticket time in the pipeline
- views of the “Credit not approved” article during the report period
3,302
views of the “Credit not approved” article during the report period
- average time per article view
3.8 min
average time per article view
- CSAT across broader Customer Experience initiatives
+12%
CSAT across broader Customer Experience initiatives
Context
When a credit denial raises more questions than answers
At Parcelex, a Buy Now, Pay Later (BNPL) fintech, a credit denial was one of the most sensitive moments in the application journey.
Many people didn’t understand why their request had been declined or which alternatives were available. This lack of clarity led to frustration, complaints and repeated contacts with support.
Analyzing support tickets and service ratings revealed a pattern: questions were the main reason for contact, and credit led the subcategories, with 81% more tickets than the second most frequent topic, Documents. The topic also concentrated negative satisfaction ratings.
The diagnosis showed that part of the problem lay in how decisions were communicated. Generic or unhelpful messages made the outcome harder to understand and increased the need for clarification.
The challenge was to make these communications clearer, simpler and more useful, without exposing internal credit assessment criteria or creating expectations the product couldn’t guarantee.
The approach
Turning recurring questions into content decisions
Based on complaints, tickets and questions received by support, we identified the points in the journey where product communication needed to improve.
I led the Content Design workstream of the initiative, driving the classification of situations, the review of messages and the structuring of self-service content. In addition to guiding editorial decisions, I was directly involved in delivering part of the work, in collaboration with the Customer Experience, Support and Product Design teams.
The work was organized into three complementary workstreams: classifying situations, rewriting messages and creating self-service content.
Classifying and structuring information
Before rewriting the messages, we organized the different reasons for credit denials and assessed how each situation should be communicated to people.
More than 20 non-approval reasons were grouped into six categories, establishing a more consistent logic for the messages without necessarily repeating the same explanation for different situations.
The classification considered the nature of each situation, the information that could be shared and the guidance available.
The goal was to turn complex information into understandable messages, without exposing the internal logic of credit decisions.
Building on this structure, we made editorial decisions about the clarity of the outcome, the accuracy of explanations and guidance on next steps.
The visualization doesn’t reproduce the operational taxonomy or credit criteria.
Rewriting product messages
With the situations organized, we reviewed the titles, explanations and guidance shown throughout the application journey.
The work aimed to reduce ambiguity, replace generic expressions with contextual information and keep the different states of the experience consistent.
One key decision was to distinguish technical failures from credit denials. A generic message like “Oops! Something went wrong” could lead people to read a temporary instability as a rejection.
In the revision proposal, we made the technical nature of the problem explicit, clarified that the pre-approved credit was still available in that scenario and offered a way to ask for help.
The decision sought to bring more clarity, trust and predictability to the experience, especially at a moment of uncertainty for the person.
The comparison shows a previous text and a Content Design revision proposal, editorially refined for public presentation. There is no documented confirmation that this version was implemented.
Creating self-service content
Alongside the message improvements, we created and organized Help Center content based on the most frequent questions received by support.
Topics included credit not approved and credit assessment, as well as guidance for recurring situations in the journey.
The goal was to provide clear, accessible answers so people could find information without relying solely on contacting support.
Bringing product messages and help content closer together contributed to a more consistent experience across the interface, self-service and support.
Results
Better access to information and more efficient support
The communication review and the creation of self-service content were part of a broader set of initiatives to improve the customer experience and Customer Experience operations at Parcelex.
The “Credit not approved” article became the most viewed in the Help Center, with 3,302 views during the report period and an average of 3.8 minutes per view.
Alongside the communication and support improvements, we recorded a 15.6% reduction in ticket time in the pipeline, indicating greater operational efficiency.
The broader Customer Experience initiatives also recorded a 12% increase in customer satisfaction (CSAT).
These indicators reinforce the value of connecting problems identified in support to communication decisions and to the availability of help content.
Learning
The project showed how support records can reveal comprehension difficulties that aren’t always visible directly in the interface.
By connecting the classification of situations, the rewriting of messages and the creation of self-service content, it was possible to address the problem more comprehensively.
Content Design went beyond reviewing copy: it helped turn recurring questions into clearer, more consistent communication decisions focused on people’s needs, with positive impact on customer experience and business efficiency.
What did you think of this case study?
Participation is optional. I use feedback to improve the portfolio’s content and experience. Comments will not be published. A random identifier in this browser lets you change your vote; please do not include personal or sensitive information.