Two years ago, Sportreact came to us with an app that already had users and traction. Athletes and coaches used it daily, but the product experience wasn’t structured for growth, and without a clear UX foundation, monetization wasn’t possible.

‍

So we rebuilt the product from the ground up. Not just visually, but structurally. We redesigned the entire interface, flow, onboarding, and content hierarchy. We defined the interaction design, the motion language, the data visualization style. We removed friction and introduced clarity.

‍

And the result? Retention increased. Users navigated more confidently. Interaction depth and overall engagement improved.‍

‍

Engagement creates a foundation. Design turns that foundation into value.‍

‍

This year, Sportreact made the move every product eventually reaches: monetization. Specifically, introducing a paywall.

A paywall is a moment of truth. Users either see the value and commit, or they don’t. There’s no room for ambiguity, clutter, or “maybe later” UX.

‍

Design becomes revenue.

‍

In collaboration with the Sportreact team, we translated years of usage data and product patterns into a paywall experience that actually resonates with athletes and coaches.

This conversation explores what happened behind the scenes — the fears, the assumptions, but also the opportunities that opened up when a young startup decided to trust design and the process.

‍

‍

Question: Where was Sportreact before the redesign?

‍

Answer: Design-wise, Sportreact was still at an MVP stage — the problem was that the rest of the product wasn’t. At that point we already had 100+ clients across the world, working with coaches, teams, and universities, and generating revenue at a seed-stage startup level. But the product simply didn’t look or feel like a company operating at that scale.

The UI felt outdated, the navigation wasn’t intuitive, and the overall user experience didn’t match the quality of the hardware. On one hand, it was impressive that we were able to sell the system even with a weak app design. But on the other hand, it was clear we would not be able to scale unless we made a significant step forward.

‍

Question: What frustrated you most about the original product?

‍

Answer: The experience was time-intensive, had a steep learning curve, and lacked consistency. Let me break that down:

‍

1. Too many steps.
The original product included a lot of unnecessary actions, making navigation slow and overly complex. Our goal is always to help the user perform an action as quickly and intuitively as possible — and we needed to streamline the workflow to support that.

2. Poor onboarding.
Because the UX foundation wasn’t well defined, new users had to “wander” through features to figure out how things worked. This led to frustration and slowed adoption. A better product should guide the user effortlessly, without them needing to think too hard about it.

3. Inconsistency across the interface.
As the app was developed over time, we kept adding new UI layers on top of old ones. Eventually, we ended up with multiple design patterns performing the same functions. This made the app feel uneven and visually confusing.

‍

Question: What part of the new design had the biggest impact on user engagement?

‍

Answer: It was really a combination of all three points above, and ultimately it came down to focusing on the user experience. Because we already had the product in the hands of real clients, we were able to watch how they actually used it — how they moved between screens, which buttons they relied on, what data they were analyzing, and where they hesitated. That real-world usage was incredibly valuable in shaping a more intuitive and engaging design.

It sounds simple now, but even introducing a bottom navigation bar (instead of a side modal hamburger menu, which is more common on websites than apps) made a huge difference. Small structural changes like that dramatically improved clarity, speed, and overall usability.

‍

Question: When did you first realize Sportreact as an app could be monetized?

‍

Answer: That was the idea from the start, but we hesitated for almost four years before actually launching it — and in hindsight, we should have done it sooner. The truth is, you need to start selling the software as early as possible. The sooner you do that, the sooner you get real usage data to understand what can actually be monetized — and you also become a much more attractive company to investors who are often cautious about hardware-first businesses.

‍

Question: What were your biggest fears about introducing a paywall?

‍

Answer: I think these are the usual suspects: deciding which features should go behind a paywall, considering how existing users will react if certain capabilities (like saving data) become restricted, figuring out how to structure the pricing tiers, and then communicating all of that in a way that actually feels appealing rather than limiting. There’s always the fear that the subscription launch will be slower than expected, so managing expectations is critical here.

‍

Question: What assumptions proved to be wrong once the paywall went live?

‍

Answer: There were a few surprises. For example, we initially expected to sell more monthly subscriptions, but it turned out that clients were actually more willing to commit to multi-year plans. Those longer-term deals ended up having the highest conversion rates.

I also assumed that converting existing customers would be easier, since they already knew the system. But in reality, new customers were more likely to subscribe. They came in with a fresh experience and a clear understanding of the value from day one.

‍

Question: What KPI improved the most because of the redesign + monetization?

‍

Answer: The software sales brought significantly higher margins, and ultimately created an additional revenue stream. Since Sportreact Plus is still in its early stages, watching the monthly subscriptions stack up and grow cumulatively has really shifted our overall business strategy.

It’s not just about increased revenue. We didn’t simply introduce a paywall — we added a number of new features within the Plus version. As a result, users became much more aware of the analytical side of the system, because the insights were deeper and more meaningful. User engagement increased as well, especially with the introduction of premium templates. And interestingly, we also saw a shift in the types of clients we attracted — we became more appealing to institutional organizations, not just individual coaches.

‍

Question: What did you learn about your users from the process of charging them?

‍

Answer: We are still learning a lot, but a few insights became very clear:

‍

1. Localization matters.
Different regions adopt subscription models at different speeds. For example, our U.S. clients were generally quicker to accept the software subscription approach, while some other markets showed more hesitation and needed more time and education before switching.

2. Not all users have the same use case.
Sportreact supports a wide range of environments — universities, private training facilities, soccer clubs, physical therapists, and more. Each of these groups uses the product differently, which means the value they see (and are willing to pay for) varies. Because of that, our pricing and communication strategy has to be tailored, not one-size-fits-all.

‍

Question: What advice would you give to founders who are afraid to introduce monetization?

‍

Answer: It really depends on what kind of business model you believe is right for your company. But if the answer is a software subscription model, my advice is to start monetizing the app as early as possible. You can always introduce one or two features as part of a premium tier and observe how users respond. That feedback will guide you far better than waiting until everything feels “perfect” before launching.

‍

Question: Complete the sentence: “If we didn’t redesign, we would never have…”

‍

Answer: …a business. Moving into a subscription model was essential — it was the only way to truly scale the system globally. But it had to be done thoughtfully. The redesign needed to create a seamless user experience, make the value easy to understand, and ensure that the new features clearly justified the subscription. Without that, the model simply wouldn’t work.

‍

Question: What part of working with Unordinary’s made the biggest difference in your project?

‍

Answer: Unordinary’s really helped us manage our ideas. As founders, we were deeply involved in the redesign and subscription launch, and naturally we had a lot of ideas — all moving in different directions, with the urge to ship as many features as possible. A good design partner doesn’t just execute; they take that complexity, structure it, and bring clarity.

Unordinary’s did exactly that. They took our long, detailed briefs, distilled them into a focused UX direction, and guided us toward decisions that actually improved the product rather than just adding more to it. And equally important — they communicated the reasoning behind those decisions, which helped align our whole team around the same vision.

In short, they didn’t just design screens. They brought focus, and that made all the difference.