App Paywall Redesign

I redesigned El Confidencial's native app paywall as one reusable component used across every flow where subscription matters — from Premium articles to comments to newsletter signups. The goal was twofold: lift conversion and give the company a paywall easier to maintain and operate. Two years on, the annual subscription (set as default) runs 72%/28% over monthly, and the expandable tabs are used by 27% of landing visitors.

Subscription Experience Mobile (iOS + Android) Component System
Client:
El Confidencial
Area:
Subscription Experience / Apps
Date:
2024 — extended 2026
App paywall hero — Suscríbete ahora screen with Annual plan selected by default and visible savings badge

The Challenge

The app paywall had two compounding problems. For the user, four separate screens with no shared grammar, drifting apart with every release. For the company, no reliable way to compare plans or measure each flow — months had gone by without clean numbers. The goal wasn't just to redesign one surface: it was to lift conversion and hand the company a paywall easier to maintain, measure and operate.

One Component, Many Flows

The paywall is the same wherever it shows up — same plans, same savings badge, same CTA, same expandable sections. What changes is the flow. When the user runs into a Premium article, signs up for a paid newsletter, or comments, the paywall lands as a modal over the content. When the user taps "Subscribe" or arrives intentionally, the paywall takes the screen as a landing. One component, every flow.

Annual by Default

The Annual plan is pre‑selected with a visible savings badge. The Monthly plan stays one tap away — no friction, just a clear default. The decision benefits both sides: lower per‑month price for the user, higher LTV for the business. Validated two years later: on EC plans only, Annual wins 71.7% to 28.3% over Monthly. The default does its job.

Inline landing with the Annual plan pre‑selected and a savings badge
Inline landing with the two expandable tabs open: What's included and Need help?

Expandable Tabs in the Landing

The user who reaches the landing has room to ask; the user stopped by a modal doesn't. Two expandable tabs — "What does a subscription include?" and "Need help?" — keep the screen clean for who wants to go straight, and add depth for who wants to think it through. The informational tab gets 60% more clicks than the support one — consistent with a moment of decision, not incident. And among the users who open it, 15.6% end up subscribing — about 9× the conversion of the landing as a whole. Whether the tab triggers the decision or just identifies users already close to it, the signal is the same: it's a high‑intent touchpoint, not decoration.

Dark Mode

The whole El Confidencial app supports light and dark mode. The paywall, as part of the system, had to follow — pulling the same colour tokens, the same contrast rules, the same component styles defined elsewhere. Here it is in another flow, in dark mode: a non‑subscriber tries to comment on an article. Different entry point, same component, the right styles for the mode the user has chosen.

Same paywall as a modal in dark mode, triggered from the comments surface

Real Numbers in Production

Numbers pulled from production across every flow where the paywall appears. Two years after launch, the component still carries traffic and the design decisions still hold up.

In production today

30.6M Times the paywall was shown across all flows in the last 90 days. Two years after launch, the component is still carrying production traffic.
78.9% Of that traffic comes from the in‑article modal — the flow with the most reach by far. The system is asymmetric by design: a few flows do most of the work, the rest fill it out without divergence cost.
247× Higher end‑to‑end conversion on the voluntary landing (1.63%) than on the in‑article modal (0.007%) over the last 12 months. Same component, very different user intent — the metric reflects exactly that.
71.7% / 28.3% Annual vs Monthly clicks over the last 12 months on EC plans. The default does its job.
27% Of voluntary‑landing visitors tap at least one expandable tab. The informational tab gets 60% more clicks than the support one.
15.6% / 9× Of users who open the "What does a subscription include?" tab, 15.6% end up subscribing — about 9× the conversion of the landing as a whole. The tab is a high‑intent touchpoint, not decoration.

Key Decisions

Five decisions that defined the redesign. The first one is the architectural one — everything else follows from it.

Decisions and rationale

One paywall component across every subscription flow The component is one — same plans, same CTA, same expandable sections — whatever flow brought the user. This eliminates drift between surfaces, makes maintenance cheaper for the team, and opens the door to new flows without redesigning — just plug the existing component in.
Annual plan pre‑selected, with visible savings Annual is better for the user (lower per‑month price) and for the business (higher LTV). An active default guides without forcing — the Monthly toggle stays visible. The metric validated it later: 72/28 in favour of annual on EC plans.
Two expandable tabs only on the inline landing The landing user has room to ask; the modal user doesn't. Tabs keep the screen clean for who wants to go straight, and add depth for who wants to argue value. 27% engagement validated the call.
Decide what to measure with Data while we design, not after The previous app paywall had been running with unreliable numbers for months — nobody could compare plans or flows properly. Bringing the measurement plan into the same sprint as design — instead of leaving it as a follow‑up — meant we could read the new paywall from day one.
Copy editable without shipping a new app version Welcome offers, CTA copy, headlines — all the text inside the paywall can be updated without releasing a new build. That makes the paywall much more usable for the company: SUSC can iterate messages or run seasonal campaigns without depending on an app release cycle.

Two Years In

The component is still the paywall across all four flows. The decisions made back then — annual by default, expandable tabs, copy editable without a release — are what the numbers in production reflect today. The team kept iterating on top: new offers, refreshed copy, additional flows where subscription matters. The system absorbed it all without rework.

Learnings & Notes

  1. 01

    Designing as a component is more expensive in sprint 1 and cheaper every release after.

    Four separate screens, one per flow, would have been faster in sprint 1. But by sprint 12, every change would have propagated by hand across four places, with drift guaranteed. One component, every flow — that's what makes a system survive years of iteration without rework.

  2. 02

    Decide what to measure while you design, not after.

    The previous app paywall had been live with unreliable numbers for months — we couldn't compare plans or flows properly. Bringing the measurement decisions into the same sprint as design — instead of leaving them as a follow‑up — has been the most useful process change of the project, and the one I keep reusing on other cases since.

  3. 03

    A reusable component is a promise to the team, not a technical preference.

    SUSC can iterate paywall copy without waiting for an app release. Data can compare conversions across triggers on the same table of events. Apps can open new entries without redesigning. The decision to "design as a component" is what lets three different teams move without waiting for the designer.

All Projects