GoToWebinar: Redesign webinar scheduling
Redesigned webinar scheduling to speak the language of users — not the technology
Context
GoToWebinar is a virtual conference hosting application and platform to engage with webinar audiences. As a product, it has a lot to offer its customer base — but new features get buried under legacy product infrastructure.
In 2018, my team redesigned the end-to-end webinar experience to surface all of the new features. I worked on multiple projects including the recording gallery, notification center, and opt-in experience. The most complex task I tackled was redesigning the webinar scheduling flow.
As one of the key players in the webinar industry, GoToWebinar pioneered streaming innovations — launching Webcast and Simulive webinar types in 2017. However, by 2018, classic webinars still dominated 90% of all sessions scheduled on the platform. Despite repeated explanations of the differences between types, users still didn't understand when they should switch.
Outcomes
Redesigned end-to-end scheduling workflow adopted across the platform
Shifted the product narrative from technology-centric to outcome-centric
Improved discoverability of Webcast and Simulive webinar types
The challenge: adoption of novel webinar types
As one of the key players in the webinar industry, GoToWebinar pioneered streaming innovations. Our team launched Webcast and Simulive webinars in 2017 to address unmet user needs. However, by 2018, classic webinars still dominated 90% of sessions on the platform.
Despite repeated explanations of differences between webinar types, users still didn't understand when they should switch from classic webinars. "Webcast" and "Simulive" are artificial names we invented to define our services — they weren't how users thought about their work.
How might we help marketers select the right webinar type for their goals?
The discovery
To inform the redesign, we conducted 12 unmoderated user interviews exploring the scheduling experience. This research revealed three key opportunities:
- Simplifying the scheduling flow - Tailoring the experience for both light and heavy users - Uncovering buried functions
The key insight: instead of educating users about technology differences, our solution needed to focus on webinar outcome differences — and speak the language of our users.
The iteration
I started by sorting out the information architecture — bringing together related settings and removing the ones organizers don't actually need. Built on this IA, I created multiple explorations of the scheduling flow and narrowed them down to one mobile and one desktop prototype to test.
Final solution
The final solution is a synthesis of aesthetics, simplicity, and empathy. What if users got to choose what they need, instead of what we offer?
The reflection
Looking back, I realized how easy it was to become trapped in the product's existing logic and overlook what users actually needed. As the team that built these new webinar types, we were deeply invested in their technical innovations. We assumed users would be excited once they understood the differences — but that assumption was wrong.
Users didn't need more education; they needed a clearer path to success. This project taught me to regularly step back and ask: "Are we designing for our product's structure or our users' goals?"