Bethan DuttonAmsterdam, NL
Change theme
Creative AutomationUX/UI

Storyteq, Creative Automation Platform

Storyteq: turning a merger’s loose ends into one platform

Sole designer and UX researcher across three product areas born from a company merger: an AI-powered automation studio, a first-class digital asset manager, and a brand guidelines platform built from scratch.

Scope
UX/UI, 0→1 product design
Role
Sole designer + UX researcher
Client
Storyteq
Year
Add year
Status
Shipped

Background

One platform, stitched from two companies

Storyteq had just merged two products into one. Every client still felt the seam: inconsistent brand identity across the platform, disconnected tools, and an automation process that took clients 83 minutes to turn a single asset into a full set of animated HTML banners. My job spanned three fronts at once: bring the two companies’ identities together into one design language, fix the automation bottleneck, and give the platform’s assets a proper home.

Screenshot: unified platform after the merger
Storyteq platform, unified brand identity after the merger

Process

How the work was phased

Discover

Add timing

Watched a live automation session and visited brand departments to see how they actually worked.

Define

Add timing

Isolated the AI editing step as the real bottleneck, scoped the DAM and Brand Portal as distinct projects.

Design

Add timing

Built the shared UI kit, the AI editing studio, the DAM and the Brand Portal.

Deliver

Add timing

Shipped the automation fix, sold the DAM standalone, and launched the Brand Portal.

Research

Watching where the time actually went

Before redesigning anything, I needed to see exactly where the automation process was losing time, and how brand teams actually worked day to day, not how account handling assumed they worked.

Add count

Automation sessions observed live

Add count

Brand department visits

Add count

Client test group members

Flow diagram: watch session → isolate by area → trace to AI editing step → redesign
The diagnosis flow that took an 83-minute process down to under 10.

Problems identified

What was actually going wrong

An 83-minute bottleneck no one had isolated

Clients spent 83 minutes turning one asset into a full set of animated HTML banners, and account handling had folded every complaint about it into one generic issue.

Two brand identities living side by side

The recent merger left two companies’ guidelines unreconciled, so the platform still looked and felt like two products stitched together.

Assets with no single home

Images, videos and other assets were created and stored, but the tools around them, editing, print, sharing, review, lived apart from each other.

Brand teams with no shared playbook

Brand departments had no personalised home for their guidelines, org structure or documentation, and no consistent way to bring new files in.

Representative of feedback patterns described in research and retrospectives, written to reflect the theme, not verbatim quotes from named individuals.

I don’t know why this took so long, I just needed one banner set.

Client feedback, paraphrased

Our brand guidelines live in five different places. Nobody’s sure which one is current.

Brand team feedback, paraphrased

Who this was for

Two different users, two different needs

Brand Manager

Owns brand consistency

  • A single personalised home for guidelines and org structure
  • Easy distribution of new brand files to teams
  • Confidence the platform reflects two merged identities as one

Creative Producer

Ships the assets

  • Fast turnaround on animated banners and creative sets
  • One tool for editing, automation and review, not several
  • Trust that automation output is accurate before it ships

Key decisions

Problem, decision, outcome

Problem
Automation complaints were being treated as one big issue, so nobody knew where to focus.
Decision
Watched a live session and split the issue by area, rather than trusting the existing categorisation.
Outcome
Isolated the AI editing step as the actual bottleneck, not the tool everyone assumed.
Problem
Assets, editing, print and review all lived in different tools.
Decision
Rebuilt the DAM as one connected home for every asset-related task.
Outcome
The DAM became strong enough to sell as a standalone product.

Final design

What I designed

0→1 product

An AI editing studio

Designed a dedicated studio for image generation, masking, cutout and animation, sitting at the exact point in the workflow where time was disappearing, plus the auto-detection tooling that fed it.

Screenshot: AI editing studio
AI editing studio, masking and cutout view

Systems design

A first-class DAM

Rebuilt asset management as a proper product in its own right: image editing, print services, automation, animation, sharing and review all living in one place instead of scattered across the platform.

Screenshot: DAM asset library
DAM asset library, grid view

0→1 product

A Brand Portal from scratch

Built a Zero Height-style home for brand guidelines: automated document creation, org structures, and a personalised, almost Netflix-like experience per brand.

Screenshot: Brand Portal home
Brand Portal home, personalised per brand

Cross-team bridge

One design language, two dev teams

Acted as the connective layer between two product and engineering teams that had never worked from the same system before, in both design and delivery.

Diagram: shared design system across two dev teams
Shared UI kit, Figma and Storybook side by side

Edge cases

Constraints that shaped the decisions

Constraint

Account handling had already grouped every complaint into one generic issue

Response: diagnosed the automation problem by area myself, live in a real session, rather than trusting the existing categorisation.

Constraint

Two development teams inherited from a merger, running on different foundations

Response: built one shared UI kit in Figma and Storybook both teams could work from without a re-platform.

Constraint

Real clients, real revenue, no room for a broken rollout

Response: validated every change with a genuine client test group before it went out platform-wide.

Trade-offs

What I chose not to do

We didn’t rebuild automation infrastructure from scratch

Once the AI editing step was fixed, further infrastructure change wasn’t worth the disruption to a live client base.

We didn’t unify the merged companies’ entire tech stack at once

Brand and UI cohesion came first. Deeper platform consolidation was left for later phases.

Outcome

Where the numbers landed

Business impact

83 → 10 min

Banner production time, down from the original process

Product

2

Enterprise clients buying the DAM standalone (Heineken, Clarks)

Adoption

3

Flagship platform clients (GSK, Puma, WWE)

DAM sold standalone to Heineken and Clarks. Platform clients included GSK, Puma, WWE.

Testimonials

Add a quote here from a colleague or client about working with you on Storyteq.

Name, Title, Storyteq

Add a second quote here, if you have one.

Name, Title, Storyteq

Reflection

What I learned

01

Cohesion beats features

The biggest wins didn’t come from adding capability, they came from making three disconnected products feel like one.

02

Diagnose before you redesign

The fastest fix wasn’t a redesign, it was watching one session and finding the single step actually costing the time.

Skills demonstrated

UX researchTime & motion diagnosisRoot-cause analysis0→1 product designDesign systems (Figma + Storybook)Cross-team leadershipAI-assisted tooling designStandalone product packaging

More work