From “we should go” to “we’re going”
Why young adults find plans on the social app and finish them in other apps, and what to change so the plan stays.
The one-minute version
- The feature works, but almost nobody finds it. 94% created an event easily once they found it; 29% struggled to find it at all.
- It arrives too late. It needs a confirmed date, but agreeing on a date is the biggest planning pain (41%).
- Adoption is a trust story in some markets. In the UK and Australia, WhatsApp habit and privacy worries matter as much as missing features.
The business problem
The social app was exploring how to help people plan events and find local things to do inside DMs. The open question was whether the new Events feature would close the gap between sharing an idea and actually going.
What the team already suspected
Young adults constantly share location and event content with friends, yet many of those conversations do not follow through. People bounce between apps for discovery, coordination and logistics, and every hand-off is a chance to lose the plan.
What the business needed
Evidence to shape the product roadmap for Events: how young adults discover, share, coordinate and act on local plans across platforms, and how the new experience fits into what they already do.
The questions I set out to answer
- Can people find, understand and use Events inside DMs?
- How well does it fit how they already plan with friends?
- Where are the friction points, unmet expectations and missing capabilities?
- Does it keep planning inside the social app, or still push people to other apps?
- Which use cases and group types does it serve best?
My approach
Method
An unmoderated study with two parts. First, a structured survey on local discovery, planning, group coordination and live location sharing. Second, guided testing of the new Events feature, either live through an allowlist or as a screenshot walkthrough, with feedback on discoverability, usability, expectations and fit with their existing habits.
Why this method
The question was comparative and cross-market, so I needed the same tasks and questions in four countries at the same time. Survey numbers sized each problem; task recordings and open-ended answers explained it.
My role
I analysed the survey data, task recordings and open-ended answers, turned them into insights and recommendations, and wrote the report for the social app team. The research plan and discussion guide came from Applause.
Who took part
64 people aged 18–24 (33 men, 31 women), 16 in each market. Two cohorts: people who mainly use the social app for events and locations (Cohort A), and people who mainly use other apps (Cohort B).
The sample: each dot is one participant
Chile skewed toward Cohort A (12 of 16), so I read market and cohort differences as directional.
What I found
Eight insights came out of the study. These four carry the story.
1. The social app owns the idea, not the plan
Most participants discover local events on the social app. The moment they find something, planning moves elsewhere. Participants described a four-app relay to schedule a single event, and the social app owns only the first step.
↑ This is where the social app loses the plan
“My friends all respond faster on WhatsApp. It’s just where plans actually happen.”
Participant 38, UK2. Scheduling is what kills plans
When I asked what is hardest about organising a group outing, agreeing on a date came first by a wide margin. The Events feature asks for a confirmed date up front, so it only helps after the hardest problem has already been solved.
The hardest part of coordinating a group outing (top three answers)
Survey, n = 64. By market: scheduling was the top pain for 56% in the Philippines and 50% in the UK; Chile named agreeing on an activity (38%); Australia split between scheduling and non-response.
“Plans mostly fall apart because my friends have different schedules, making it difficult to find a time when everyone is free.”
Participant 18, Chile3. The usability problem is the door, not the room
Once people found the feature they understood it immediately: 94% created an event easily. Finding it was the problem. The recordings show people looking in sensible places and still not seeing it, and how easy it was to find varied sharply by market.
Found the feature “very easy” to find
Survey, n = 64. Question: “How easy or difficult was it to find this feature?”
“I would never look for this under the plus icon.”
Participant 60, AustraliaThe creation flow itself had three small problems worth fixing: a reminder field that was greyed out with no explanation (6+ participants), an “All day” toggle that still showed times (5+), and a back arrow that cancelled the whole flow and deleted progress (2).
4. Adoption is a market story
83% said they would use the social app DMs more for planning after seeing the feature. That number hides a split: enthusiasm was highest in the Philippines and Chile, and lowest in the UK and Australia, where WhatsApp habit and privacy concerns run deepest.
Likelihood of using the social app DMs more for planning, by market
View as table
| Market | Much more likely | Somewhat more likely | No change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Philippines | 75% | 25% | 0% |
| Chile | 56% | 31% | 13% |
| Australia | 44% | 25% | 31% |
| UK | 44% | 31% | 25% |
Survey, n = 64 (16 per market). Percentages are of each market’s 16 participants.
“WhatsApp feels more private and secure, while the social app feels more data-driven in terms of tracking activity and preferences.”
Participant 40, UKMore findings
Three types of first reactionComprehension was strong. Interest depended on habit and trust.
What people lovedPinned details, dedicated chat and personalisation
Pinned event details were near-universally valued (100% “very useful” in the Philippines) and 88% of Philippines participants rated the dedicated event chat “very useful”. Background customisation was the most-cited reason people found the feature fun, personal and different from another group chat, mentioned more often than any functional feature. But theme quality read as expressive in the Philippines and as “clunky” or “messy” in Australia and the UK.
Where the feature has a gap, and where it fitsWhat people have today, what they need, and which groups it suits
The gap between having the content and making the plan
| What the social app has today | What people need | The gap |
|---|---|---|
| Content discovery (Reels, Explore) | A way to move from content to a plan | No content-to-planning bridge |
| Group DMs | Scheduling coordination | No date-finding tools |
| Message threads | Confirmation of attendance | No RSVP mechanism |
| Chat history | Persistent event details | Information gets buried |
| — | Cost coordination | No expense tools |
Which plans the feature fits best
Based on open-ended survey answers to “I would use this feature when…”.
How the two cohorts differedBoth like it. Only one trusts the platform to adopt it.
| Cohort A (mainly the social app) | Cohort B (mainly other apps) | |
|---|---|---|
| Feature perception | More aspirational potential (43% “equally both”) | More committed-only (59%) |
| Adoption intent | 54% much more likely | 55% much more likely |
| Primary concern | Missing features | Trust and habit inertia |
| What would convert them | More use cases, richer customisation | Privacy controls and scheduling tools |
What I recommended
The strategic picture in one line: the feature gets the fundamentals right but the distribution wrong. It is a well-designed tool that only a few can find, and it enters the planning journey too late.
Create a content-to-commitment pipeline
Move the entry point out of the DM menu and into the places people already discover plans: Feed, Reels and relevant chats.
Why: the feature sits where planning ends up, not where it starts.Own the pre-commitment moment
Add a lightweight pre-commitment mode: an event with the date “to be decided”, where friends signal intent and a date-range poll shows the options. Once a date is agreed, the full event fills in automatically.
Why: 41% name date-finding as their biggest pain, and no competitor owns the space between “we should do this” and “we’re going”.Give the whole group a role, not just the organiser
RSVP states (going, maybe, not going), a shared prep checklist and cost-splitting so every guest has a stake. Scheduling polls, cost-splitting and RSVP are the three missing capabilities that decide daily use.
Why: 14% say non-response is their top pain, and today one person coordinates while everyone else waits.Win the UK and Australia on trust and integration
Make encryption status and the event privacy model visible inside the chat, add a privacy controls panel, calendar export and cross-platform invites, and lead launch messaging with privacy rather than features.
Why: people there choose WhatsApp because it feels safe and their friends are there, not because its event tools are better.Use the Philippines and Chile as the scale and learning engine
Roll out first where readiness is highest, use Philippines behaviour as the benchmark for the ideal flow, and feature those users’ stories as proof in harder markets.
Why: designing for the hardest markets first slows learning where real adoption data would come from.Treat visual identity as a strategic differentiator
Invest in a searchable, categorised theme library with market-relevant curation and consistent quality, and explore an AI-generated cover option that several Australian participants asked for.
Why: customisation is the emotional hook, and a hook cannot have a quality ceiling that changes by market.
Impact
The report's central message moves the question from “is the feature good?” (it is) to “where does it sit in the planning journey?”
Delivered
- A full insights report for the social app Events & Local Discovery team in June 2026
- An executive summary with 8 insights and 6 recommendations
- Market-by-market and cohort-by-cohort results, so each market could be planned for separately
What it was built to inform
The product roadmap strategy for Events: where to place the entry point, which capabilities to build next, which markets to launch in first, and how to position the feature in the UK and Australia.
Limits, and what I would do next
Limits I kept in view
- 16 participants per market, so comparisons between markets are directional, not statistically conclusive.
- Ages 18–24 only.
- Unmoderated: I could see where people got lost, but not ask why in the moment.
What I would do next
- Test the pre-commitment concept with a prototype before anything is built.
- Run a short round of moderated sessions in the UK and Australia to learn whether privacy is a real barrier or a stated one.
- Size the market differences with a larger survey.
Want the full story?
I am happy to walk through the method, the evidence behind each finding, and what I would do differently. nassim.seridji@gmail.com