Case Study · 02
Years of evidence, two rename attempts, built for billions of users.
Years of research told us that people didn’t understand the language we used to describe our third-party data controls.
One of these controls was first called “Data from partners,” and later, “Activity information from ad partners.” These names prioritized legal precision over user comprehension.
I led content design across two attempts, over multiple years, to rename this setting in plain language.
The first time, I secured resourcing for and led research across the ads and privacy orgs, establishing how users understood this data. I used it to propose naming frameworks that matched that understanding, but couldn’t move us away from a legalistic name.
When the product’s scope expanded, I got a second chance. I partnered with user research to synthesize years of existing studies, and brought legal in from the start to support my recommendation. I led a team of content and product designers to redesign the setting’s content and information architecture, then drove stakeholder alignment and secured VP approval to launch.
Despite being unsuccessful in my first attempt, I built the foundation for success later. I led research and socialized the findings across the company to make my case over time for simpler language. I also established a lot of credibility and social capital with legal that I drew on in my second attempt.
When the setting expanded beyond ads, “ad partners” was no longer accurate. Technically precise names break when scope changes, while plain-language names are more likely to last. I’d made this argument during the control’s last scope change, and now the same problem was back. I synthesized years of studies, including original research I’d run, into a well-documented recommendation.
This time I brought legal in early, not as a gatekeeper to manage, but as a genuine collaborator. I walked them through the research history, the user comprehension evidence, and my recommendation: “Activity from other businesses.” Research had shown users consistently understood “businesses” language more intuitively than “partners” or “advertisers,” even if it wasn’t a perfect technical match for scope.
Thanks to this early partnership, legal became my strongest advocate in the room, pushing back against stakeholders who wanted to revert to technically precise but less understandable alternatives. My insistence on plain language paid off when we went to brief regulators, where the setting’s new name and UX were well-received.
We planned a two-phase rollout, which introduced the complexity of carrying two different sets of terminology for the same concept for at least a year across our products. To get ahead of this, I built an internal content governance playbook to document the rationale behind every terminology decision, the nuances of the dual-terminology transition period by region, and guidance for teams applying the framework to their experiences.
To get 50+ surfaces and dozens of partner teams aligned, I created and socialized a briefing deck that gave every team the rationale, terminology rules, and guidance for implementing changes to their surfaces. The result: Every team agreed on the changes needed and shipped on our established timeline.
The new naming launched to 3.6 billion users in phase 1 across most global regions, with over 50 surfaces updated to reflect the change. Phase 2 regions would follow, extending the same terminology to billions more users.
The before and after represent years of research, two attempts, and a sustained case for putting user comprehension ahead of legal precision.