Chicken breast
“I know what I want.”
Take me to the exact product.
Make it quick. Make it clear.
Licious · Product discovery
Search 2.0
Less searching.
More finding the right thing.
love it.
The idea
A product in mind.
Or a meal to figure out.
Two types of intent. Yet in the existing journey, both customers land in the same experience.
Fish for curry
“Help me choose.”
Show me what fits my meal.
Give me a reason to pick it.
the final design. now, the thinking behind it.
Existing-search evidence · Add-to-cart rate
The clearer the intent,
the stronger the signal.
Specific search terms had higher add-to-cart rates than broad category searches.
- Fish
- 10.8%
- Rohu
- 22%
- Mutton
- 17.4%
- Mutton keema
- 26.7%
- Chicken
- 31.3%
- Chicken breast
- 37.3%
Existing-search ATC figures from the research deck. These are not post-launch results for Search 2.0.
Talking to customers
There’s a reason
behind the search.
I spoke with 14 frequent customers across categories about what they searched for and why.
- 01
Look at behaviour
Query patterns. Add-to-cart signals.
- 02
Hear the reason
Meals, diet and family preferences.
- 03
Define the job
One decided. One still deciding.
“I usually buy Chicken breast for my protein diet.”
Protein needs
“I buy Chicken legs for my kids.”
Family preferences
“I buy Rohu Peti Cut because it’s easier for my kids”
The right cut
“My family loves prawns so i order.”
Familiar favourites
“People weren’t just looking for products.
They were shopping with a purpose.”
Where the old journey fell short
Different needs.
The same list.
For the decided buyer
Similar products meant more scanning and a slower route to the right one.
For the undecided buyer
No obvious starting point. More manual comparison, without enough confidence to choose.
finding ≠ deciding.
From research to requirements
Not everyone needs
more options.
I turned the research into two sets of design requirements.
Product first
Speed &
precision.
- Put exact matches first
- Make variants easy to scan
- Keep familiar products close
Need first
Guidance &
confidence.
- Group choices by meal or need
- Make cuts recognisable
- Give people a useful starting point
The design hypothesis
Match the intent.
Not just the keyword.
Keep a direct path for a decided purchase.
Offer context when the decision is still open.
Turning the findings into a system
Intent shaped the architecture.
Then the interface.
Two routes within one experience—not two separate search journeys.
One search Two ways to a choice
Product first
Exact match
- Exact results
- Relevant variants
- Frequently bought
- Popular SKUs
Need first
Organise by context
- Popular cuts
- Cooking style
- Meal needs
- Preparation time
Both intents. The same three stages.
Search 2.0 · The final design
A little more understanding.
A lot less looking.
01 · Before search
Start with
something familiar.
Recent searches and previously bought products shorten the path back. Categories and cooking styles open a different way in.
not every journey
needs a new query.
02 · While searching
A few letters.
A clearer direction.
Recognisable imagery and grouped fish suggestions make the options easier to scan. Need-based collections turn a broad search into a useful choice.
a name you know.
a meal you’re planning.
03 · After search
Narrow the list.
Keep the confidence.
less scanning.
more “that’s the one.”
The rail follows the query
Different intent.
Different way in.
Species for fish. Cuts and preparations for chicken.
The less-than-perfect moments
Search shouldn’t
dead-end.
A typo, no match or unavailable product should still leave a way forward.
Working with engineering
A better search.
On the same foundation.
I worked with engineering to confirm that the design could use the existing search APIs. Search 2.0 is currently in development; launch results are not available yet.
- Keep
- Existing search APIs
- Rethink
- How choices are presented
- Explore next
- Personalisation
The experience, together
From “what do I need?”
to “found it.”
Scroll to explore · Select any screen for the full view
