Wrapped-style year in review · Eduzz 2024

Interactive experienceYear in Review 20242024

What do creators actually share? I designed this "Wrapped" from last edition's data, not from my own taste.

Client: Eduzz
Role: Product designer
Timeline: 2 weeks
Disciplines: Discovery, Benchmarking, Stakeholder ideation, Branding

Stories-format screens from the Eduzz Year in Review 2024 with a purple-to-orange gradient background

The context

Every platform wants customers to feel they grew alongside it. Eduzz did that at the end of each year with a personalized recap: every creator (Eduzz sells digital products for creators) got a sequence of screens with their own wins, like sales, reach, best-selling content, and countries reached.

In 2024 the question wasn’t “how to make a beautiful recap,” because that already existed. It was how to make a recap people want to show off. A recap nobody shares is just a report with animations.

The pain

A recap does two jobs: it recognizes the creator, and it takes the brand outside the platform when they post it. Both depend on the content being about something the person is proud of. The risk was repeating the formula of filling screens with metrics and hoping someone found them interesting.

The research

Looking at what had already happened

The previous edition left behind a valuable piece of data: the share rate of each screen. Side by side, the numbers told a clear story.

Six screens from the previous recap with their share rates: 21%, 20%, 14%, 11%, 9%, and 8% — Share rate per screen in the previous edition. The screens about the creator's impact on other people's lives, and the most personalized ones, lead.

The most shared screen (21%) wasn’t about revenue. It was the one saying how many lives the creator helped transform. Right behind it (20%) came the personalized opening with the person’s name. The generic screens with institutional messages sat at the back of the line.

People don’t share numbers. They share what the numbers say about them.

Benchmarking

Spotify Wrapped is the obvious reference, and for good reason: stories format, one idea per screen, personal data turned into identity (“you’re in the top 0.5% of listeners…”). Benchmarking was used to understand the pacing and the language, not copy the look.

Ideation with stakeholders

In October 2024, a stakeholder workshop grouped the ideas into four tracks: Product, Creators, Journey, and +Human. Then each idea was placed on an impact vs. effort matrix to decide what made it into this edition.

Workshop board with ideas grouped into Product, Creators, Journey, and +Human — Grouping and voting in the workshop.

Impact vs. effort prioritization matrix with the workshop ideas — Prioritizing by impact × effort.

The solution

The narrative was built as a journey: it starts with the creator (personalization), moves through their impact on people, and ends looking ahead.

Opening screens of the recap inviting the creator to see the year's highlights — The opening calls the creator by name and promises something about them, not about the platform.

Screens with the creator's achievements throughout the year

Screens with results by feature and the creator's impact

Closing screens with recognition messages and a community photo

The ending ties the recap to the platform’s recognition program: each creator sees which belt they can reach in 2025, whether Red, Orange, Green, or Black Belt. The recap stops being just a look back and becomes an invitation to the next year.

Four closing screens, each with a different belt from the recognition program — The ending points forward: which belt the creator can reach next year.

The prototype was built to be interactive, so stakeholders could navigate it the way a creator would, on a phone, screen by screen.

What I took from this project

The best design input on this project didn’t come from an interview or a reference. It came from the previous edition’s share data. Before coming up with new ideas, it pays to look at what users have already told you through their behavior.