Every week, owners watch their engagement rise and fall with no idea why. Pulse is a diagnostic dashboard that names the cause, ranks the fix, and turns daily anxiety into a daily decision.
A missed week on Instagram doesn't just feel bad — it costs orders. For independent founders running everything themselves, the social channel is where customers discover, judge, and decide. So when the numbers wobble, the anxiety is real.
Most owners we spoke with run their feed between everything else — packing orders, replying to DMs, opening up the shop. They post when there's time, hope it lands, and glance at the metrics later.
When something dips — reach falls, comments dry up — they notice instantly. The trouble starts at the next step. There's no obvious way to tell whether the cause is content, timing, algorithm, or audience. So they guess. And guessing is exhausting.
“ My engagement dropped 60% last month and I genuinely have no idea if it was my content, the algorithm, or just bad luck. I'm flying blind.
Native analytics tools tell business owners what happened, but never why. The result: anxious decision-making based on hunches, not data.
Is it the content? Did the last few posts not land — or is the format the issue?
Is it the timing? Posting at the wrong hour, the wrong day, or too infrequently?
Is it the algorithm? Did Meta change something behind the scenes again?
Is it the audience? Are followers losing interest — or has the demographic shifted?
A dashboard that does the analytical work for business owners — surfacing problems, explaining them in plain language, and recommending the next move.
Surface engagement issues the moment they happen, before momentum is lost. Smart anomaly detection that watches the numbers so owners don't have to.
Compare content, timing, format, and audience signals to pinpoint what changed. Translate the analysis into clear, jargon-free explanations.
Suggest specific, prioritized fixes — not a list of metrics to interpret. Tell users what to post, when, and why it will help.
A mix of generative and evaluative methods — going beyond traditional interviews to understand actual behavior, not just stated preference.
12 small business owners interviewed about their relationship with social media — focused on motivations and outcomes, not demographics.
5 participants logged their social media check-ins for 2 weeks. Surfaced the emotional patterns and decision moments behind the data.
Evaluated 8 competitors — from Meta Business Suite to Sprout Social — against Nielsen heuristics and JTBD coverage.
Two remote sessions with 6 owners using FigJam — they sketched their ideal "what's wrong" report. Patterns emerged fast.
Moderated sessions with prototypes at three fidelities. Tracked time-to-insight, confidence ratings, and confusion points.
Check their analytics daily but admit they "don't know what to look for"
The average number of tools owners switch between to piece together a picture
Have changed their strategy based on hunches in the last 6 months
Average willingness-to-pay per month for a tool that diagnoses problems
The research surfaced two distinct user types — both small business owners, but with different relationships to data, time, and risk. Designing for both meant balancing simplicity with depth.
Runs her sustainable fashion boutique solo. Posts 4–5 times a week and checks Instagram between customer DMs and inventory runs. Confident with content but uncertain with numbers.
A quick read on what's going wrong — without having to learn marketing terminology. Tell her what to fix and she'll fix it.
Manages marketing for both café locations with a part-time helper. Comfortable with metrics, runs occasional paid campaigns, but still feels he's missing the "why" behind organic dips.
Diagnostic depth — he wants to understand the reasoning, drill into segments, and test hypotheses. A tool that respects his data fluency without burying him in spreadsheets.
The core experience had to compress hours of analysis into a single scroll. Early wireframes focused on hierarchy — what the user sees first, second, third — before any visual treatment.
Each design iteration was tested with 4–6 participants from the target personas. The pattern was consistent: less is more, language matters, and mobile is non-negotiable.
The first prototype tried to be comprehensive — 12+ metrics visible at once. Sarika opened it, paused, and said "I don't know where to start." The mistake was treating the dashboard like a report.
Reduced the top-level view to three metrics and a single status signal. Detail moved into progressive disclosure, available but not assumed. Mihir could still drill in; Sarika didn't have to.
Even our cleanest layouts failed when the copy was technical. Testers visibly tuned out on terms like "reach vs. impressions" or "engagement rate by impressions." The numbers didn't matter if the labels were opaque.
Worked with a content strategist to translate every label, tooltip, and recommendation into conversational language. Replaced jargon with action: "Your posts are reaching fewer people than usual."
Diary studies revealed the real use case: opportunistic mobile check-ins, often one-handed, often interrupted. Our desktop-first design assumed focused time the users didn't have.
Rebuilt the diagnosis flow as a vertical scroll, optimised for thumb reach. Charts simplified into trend bands. Recommendations turned into swipeable cards. Desktop became the secondary experience.
The final product is built around four principles. They're not novel, but they're applied with intent — every screen, every label, every interaction.
Lead with what's happening and why — not with a wall of metrics to interpret.
Replace jargon with sentences a small-business owner reads once and understands.
Every view points to a single next step, so decisions don't pile up.
Designed thumb-first — the phone is where most checks actually happen.