Unlocking the revenue potential of Netflix Bundles

Bundles were Netflix's fastest-growing acquisition channel, but something wasn't adding up

Netflix partners with ISPs and telecoms worldwide (Comcast, T-Mobile, Movistar, and others) to bundle Netflix into their packages. For customers, bundles removed three barriers: access to the service, awareness it was included, and payment, since billing was handled by the partner.

Millions activated through bundles, but while acquisition was strong, the plan mix was off.

Netflix offered Basic (SD, 1 stream), Standard (HD, 2 streams), and Premium (4K, 4 streams). In direct-to-consumer markets, the mix was healthy. Bundle members, however, were overwhelmingly on Basic — the plan included free — and almost none were upgrading.

The bundle entry point. Customers landed here and were fast-tracked into Basic with no plan context.

First designer dedicated to the bundle experience

I was the first designer assigned full-time to the bundle experience, a product area without dedicated design leadership. I worked with a cross-functional team spanning product, engineering, data science, business development, research, visual design, and content design.

I defined the UX strategy, shaped the roadmap with PM, led projects from concept through A/B testing, and advocated for customers in a space where revenue goals dominated the conversation.

Starting by asking why

Before jumping into solutions, I studied existing bundle research and data to synthesize what we knew, identify open questions, and start shaping a UX strategy.

Mapping the journey

I audited the full bundle journey to find where the experience broke down and where intervention would have the most impact.

Activation was where the plan decision should have happened, but for bundle members it was absent. They confirmed their email, set a password, and went straight to watching. No plan information. No choice. The business called this a "plan mix gap." From the customer's perspective, the questions were simpler:

This reframing mattered. The business saw a revenue problem. I saw an informed-choice problem — and that distinction shaped every design decision that followed.

From "close the plan mix gap" to "help members get the best experience"

The business question was: How do we close the plan mix gap? I reframed it as a customer question: How do we help bundle members get the best Netflix experience? Centering customer benefit — HD quality, multiple screens, 4K — rather than revenue extraction changed the solutions we'd explore and the principles we'd design by.

It was also a retention play. Customers on Basic couldn't watch on multiple devices, meaning lower household engagement and higher churn. Better plan mix served long-term retention as much as short-term revenue.

Three bets, one qualitative study

From the research synthesis, I developed hypotheses about why bundle members weren't upgrading. We narrowed to three design directions along a spectrum of complexity to test qualitatively:

I also improved the visual design of the activation flow, which had legibility issues on TV. Here's what each concept looked like:

Concept 1: Drop-in upsell

A simple upsell prompt surfaced after activation: "There's a better plan for you."

Concept 2: Plan comparison during activation

Landing

Create account

Choose plan

Concept 3: Personalized plan recommendation

Welcome

Genre preferences

Device selection

Household size

The pre-selection debate

The design team felt strongly, but we needed arguments that resonated with revenue-focused stakeholders. Two landed:

The trust argument: Pre-selecting higher plans might boost short-term revenue, but it would erode trust. Long-term retention required customers to feel they'd made a real choice.

The partner argument: Unexpected charges would drive support calls to the partner, increasing their costs and damaging Netflix's relationship. The bundles business depended on these partnerships.

Both landed. We aligned on opt-in as a design principle, and it held through the rest of the project.

Basic selected: $0/month extra

Standard selected: $3/month extra

Premium selected: $6/month extra

Testing in Munich and Palm Springs

We ran a qualitative study with 16 participants across Munich and Palm Springs — two markets with very different bundle landscapes — to test the three directions.

The results were clear: nearly all participants preferred the plan comparison. It let them compare options and make an informed decision without feeling overwhelmed. The personalized recommendation felt like too much friction. The drop-in upsell felt like an afterthought.

A plan selection step in the bundle activation flow

Based on the findings, we designed a plan comparison screen as step 2 of a 3-step activation flow: Confirm email → Choose plan → Start watching.

The TV activation flow

Landing

Create account

Choose plan

Start watching

All three plans appeared side-by-side with key benefits and the additional monthly cost above the bundle. The included plan was clearly marked, and no plan was pre-selected — customers had to actively choose.

What I took away from this work

This project reinforced something I keep coming back to: the way you frame the problem determines the quality of the solution. Staying in the "close the plan mix gap" framing would have likely produced a dark pattern. Reframing it as an informed-choice problem led to a solution better for customers, partners, and revenue.

I also learned to build persuasive cases in the language stakeholders speak. The design team knew opt-in was right. But "it's the right thing to do" doesn't move a biz dev team — "it protects partner relationships and retention" does.

Being the first dedicated designer on a product area taught me how much design leadership happens before you open a design tool: defining strategy, building shared understanding, and creating conditions for good decisions.