Fetch

Fetch is a consumer rewards app. I was its first enterprise designer. I left with a team of five, a foundational approach to design systems, and a partner platform that took time to first revenue from a two-to-five week manual handoff to zero.

Role
Director of Product Design, Enterprise
Tenure
December 2021 to May 2025
Reported to
VP of Product, later the CPO
Team
Four designers and me
2–5 wks → 0
Time to first revenue
0 → 92%
Active partners logging in weekly
1 → 5
Enterprise design team

What I walked into

Fetch wanted to grow, and it wanted that growth to come from partners running their own programs instead of asking someone at Fetch to run them. Self-service was the flywheel. There was no enterprise product for a partner to serve themselves in.

A partner who wanted to launch an offer, watch it perform, and adjust the next one had to work across roughly twenty-five separate areas to assemble a single conclusion. Nothing completed the loop. Implementation coordinators held it together by hand, one account at a time.

Partners saw their own numbers when somebody at Fetch built them a readout. Weekly, biweekly, monthly, quarterly, depending on the account. Sales assembled every one of those by hand and delivered it. That was the reporting product.

Design had no team, no artifacts, and no intake. I got my work by sitting with implementation coordinators and product leads, asking what they actually did all day, then tracing which parts of it the data could support.

The dysfunction was not a bad interface. Nobody had designed the operations. Data went wherever the nearest pipeline put it, and there was no model of how a person was supposed to move through any of it. We had tools. We did not have a system.

Partner reporting
Manual readouts on a weekly, biweekly, monthly, or quarterly cadence. Sales built and delivered every one by hand.
Sources of truth
Roughly twenty-five separate areas someone could look, with no guarantee of a clear conclusion at the end of it.
Time to first revenue
Two to five weeks of implementation coordinator and sales time, per account.
Design team
One. Me.
Design intake
None. Work arrived through conversation, or it did not arrive.

The bet

01

Tell the whole system as a story

Solving the inputs would not have solved the problem. Once that was clear, the first real artifact I produced was a model of how a partner's information moved through the company. It worked as a storytelling exercise. It let people see the totality of the system at once, which no single team had done before.

The costFor a long stretch I had very little to show. Nobody gets excited about a data model.
02

Embed design in the Packs

Design worked inside the multidisciplinary Packs. Each designer supported more than one, and I grouped them so a designer's Packs shared substantive problem-space context instead of splitting attention across unrelated domains. Every Pack ran its own sprint schedule.

The costCoordination. I kept team syncs and reviews, so the Pack schedules became another moving piece to hold together. As trust in the team grew, the asks grew with it.
Data flow model

Building the team

Four designers and me. I was directly involved in every hiring decision.

I wrote the roles and the levels with the Director of Consumer Design. We built and reviewed the ladder together and agreed on where the bar sat for each level, so a title meant the same thing on both sides of the company.

I split my time between leading, mentorship, and execution the entire way through.

Building the system

The enterprise design system stayed separate from the consumer one, deliberately. A partner reads our platform to make a decision about money, so it needed density and clarity. The consumer side needed to be fun. Two audiences, two systems, one standard.

The team maintained it themselves. No dedicated systems designer. We worked directly with the front-end platform team so components shipped as code instead of drifting as a Figma library.

What we started changed the consumer side. They rethought and reworked their own system after watching how fast a much smaller team could move. They did not take our components. They took the argument for having a system at all.

I worked with the VP of Product and the CPO as a design leader, and with product and engineering managers as a peer. Every negotiation happened case by case. There was no standing agreement to hide behind.

What it moved

2–5 wks → 0
Time to first revenue

Getting a new partner to first revenue used to take two to five weeks between signing the agreement and money moving. Implementation coordinators and sales carried those weeks by hand, one account at a time. For partnerships under our contractual spend threshold, the platform took that to zero.

0 → 92%
Active partners logging in weekly

The baseline was zero, because there was nothing to log into. Partners got their numbers on whatever cadence sales could sustain, in a readout someone built for them by hand. Active means partners we had a relationship with, running a live program on the consumer app. That is the denominator.

What I own in those numbers

The platform partners open, the model underneath it, the system it was built in, and the team that shipped it. It gave partners the transparency they had been asking for over email, and it gave sales back the hours they spent assembling readouts. I did not close the accounts.

The hard call

The loudest argument I had at Fetch was about “real time.”

The position on the table was that all partner data should arrive in “real time.” I disagreed, publicly, with people who set the roadmap.

I prototyped it instead of arguing it. The prototype showed two things. What “real time” delivery would actually cost engineering, and that a meaningful share of the data was not actionable the moment it landed. Knowing a number a day earlier does not help if nothing can be done about it until the next cycle.

We landed on a split. Specific patterns live, everything else batched. That decision set the direction for the data platform, and it held. The other path would have cost months of engineering refactoring with no guarantee the incoming data was clean enough to show anyone. The hours were the smaller risk.

The larger risk was putting a confident, wrong number in front of a partner whose reason for staying was trusting our numbers.

What I got wrong

I let executives assume too much.

The assumptions came from our newer leadership. They arrived from Pinterest, Google, companies with resourcing we did not have, and they carried priors about how hard things are and how quickly a team should move. The newness of AI in our workflow widened the gap further, in both directions.

I managed sideways well. I managed up quietly. I should have been louder about the reasoning behind the roadmap and clearer about where the company was actually going, because the distance between what leadership expected and what the team understood landed on the team.

Learnings, applied

I ensure my story is crafted for the right audience. For executives, lead with the why, then tell the story in reverse. A player coach spends all day inside the detail, and the detail is the part that does not travel upward.

What held up

The team is still there. The foundation of the product is still there.

Its shape has changed with what AI made possible since, and the parts that survived are the ones that were never about the interface. Clean data, and knowing which metrics a partner actually needs. Both still in play.

Design by ProxyFetch · 2021–2025