← Case studies 03 / 04The Trust Gap · CeXIndependent research · n=8UX Research · Usability / CRO

The information was there. The confidence wasn’t.

Price was never the objection.

CeX PlayStation 5 product page, current live version

ObservationThe reassurance existed. It just wasn’t near the hesitation.

SubjectCeX · PlayStation 5 PDP

RoleUX Researcher & CRO Consultant

Timeline5 weeks · independent

ScopeInterviews · Heuristic evaluation · Benchmarking · Redesign concept

How trust, condition transparency and reassurance shape purchasing confidence in second-hand e-commerce — translated into recommendations that ship within CeX’s existing design language.

8Participants · 2 cohortsResearch scope · no uplift claimed

Behaviour observed
Research complete · n=8
Hypotheses framed
Design response proposed
Awaiting validation
Awaiting production data

Next · 02So what was missing?

02The problem

A discount that made people suspicious.

Information≠Confidence

In second-hand electronics, a cheaper console reads as a riskier console. The saving has to be explained, not displayed.

Buyers can’t inspect the product, and grading systems read as opaque. The obvious lever — price — is already at its most aggressive.

Next · 03What does someone need to believe?

03The question

What stops someone who wants a cheaper console from buying one?

Cohort A · 4Had bought refurbished beforeAlready resolved the trust question.

Cohort B · 4 · mattered mostConsidered it, chose not toOnly the group still holding the objection can explain it.

How

Semi-structured interviews with think-aloud walkthroughs of the live PDP · affinity mapping in Dovetail · heuristic evaluation · competitor benchmarking. Recruited through Discord gaming communities.

04The findings

Three uncertainties, resolved nowhere near the decision.

Finding_01Clarity

7/8couldn’t interpret the condition grades

Grade labels like “Good” or “Excellent” were read differently by almost everyone — and they were confidently wrong.

“Yeah, something I can’t tell from pics.”Participant 03 · Cohort A

Ambiguity aversionHigh confidence · both cohorts

Finding_02Trust

6/8left the page to verify

Participants checked reviews, seller reputation and warranty elsewhere — reassurance the PDP wasn’t offering at the moment they needed it.

“I always check reviews and ratings.”Participant 06 · Cohort B

Uncertainty reductionHigh confidence · observed behaviour

Finding_03Value

4/8weighed the saving against the risk

Without context, a discount read as a warning sign rather than a reward.

“May be low, but it makes you think — for what reason?”Participant 06 · Cohort B

Loss aversionMedium confidence · concentrated in Cohort B

Next · 05Where does the trust gap sit?

05The decision path

Not one decision. Four smaller doubts.

Current live PDP at 1440×900 — Add to basket sits below the fold

06The response

Move reassurance to where the doubt happens.

All shippable inside CeX’s existing components — research that can’t ship doesn’t count.

Above the fold · zero-scroll constraint, 1440×9005 changes · drag to compare

01 · Savings vs. retailContextualises the saving against retail — answers “is it worth the risk?”
02 · Grade explained inlineDescriptive text, not a tooltip — nobody suspected the grade was ambiguous.
03 · Real product anglesSee the condition rather than imagine the worst case.
04 · Tested & VerifiedMoved above the CTA — it previously sat below the fold.
05 · Payment marks at CTAFamiliar providers next to the buy action.

Below the fold · supporting detail4 changes

06 · Comparable specsA scannable table instead of prose.
07 · What’s in the boxSecond-hand buyers can’t assume completeness.
08 · Warranty restated5-year warranty and 20-point test, where people are still weighing risk.
09 · Trade-in kept visibleThe purchase becomes partly recoverable.

Next · 07Would it actually work?

07To validate

Observed. Proposed. Not yet proven.

No access to CeX analytics, so no conversion uplift is claimed. Eight participants prove a mechanism exists, not what it’s worth.

Observed →7/8 misread grades · 6/8 left to verify · 4/8 weighed saving vs. risk
Proposed →Reassurance placed at the moment of doubt, inside existing components
To validateWhether that moves add-to-cart without moving returns

Primary hypothesis↑ ATCAdd-to-cart rises when condition is explained at the point of evaluation.Guardrail · Return and refund rate — if both rise, the copy is overselling.Method · A/B test, control vs. redesigned PDP

Supporting hypothesis↓ ExitsBack-navigation to search falls once trust signals are on-page.Guardrail · Session depth — fewer exits mustn’t mean fewer products viewed.Method · Session recording and clickstream analysis

Supporting hypothesis↑ TrustSelf-reported platform trust improves against a pre-change baseline.Guardrail · Sample composition — compare equivalent buyer types.Method · Pre/post survey, same instrument

Test order: grade explained inline first — highest participant count, copy-and-layout only. Real photos per unit last: an operational commitment worth making only once the cheaper changes prove the mechanism.

08The learning

People didn’t need more information. They needed it where the hesitation happens.

What stays uncertain

The finding I trust least came from four people — and carries the largest commercial implication.

What I’d test next

Whether honest grading lowers returns as well as raising add-to-cart — the commercial case would be far stronger.

My role

Sole researcher and designer — recruitment, sessions, synthesis and the redesign concept.

FigmaDovetailMazeSheets

More case studies