To present a customer journey map, choose one customer goal, show the evidence behind the important moments, and end with the change you want to test. Do not start by filling every stage with emotions and pain points. A map is useful when the audience can see why a particular experience deserves attention.
The worked example here follows a new team account from workspace creation to sharing a first presentation. All observations, counts, and statements below are synthetic teaching material. They are not Presenti analytics, real interviews, or customer results.
When you have your own research, organize the journey findings into a marketing presentation with Presenti. Carry the evidence labels into the deck so assumptions do not become customer facts during slide generation.
Give the audience a boundary before the map
Write the journey as a goal and a window: “A new workspace owner wants a colleague to review a first draft; we are examining the path from workspace creation to the first shared presentation.” Name the segment and channels. An experienced owner returning for a second project is a different journey.
NN/G defines a journey map around a person pursuing a goal. That focus prevents the presentation from becoming a feature inventory. The product’s navigation may contain ten sections; the user’s path may touch only three of them.
Show what the source material does—and does not—say
Imagine that a research team brings these synthetic notes to a workshop:
| Record | Sample observation | What it supports |
|---|---|---|
| U-01 | A participant creates a draft, searches the top navigation for “invite,” then returns to the editor. | The invitation action was not immediately found in that session |
| U-02 | A participant finds Share but asks whether the colleague will see the whole workspace. | A permission question occurred at sharing |
| S-01 | A sample support theme contains questions about link access. | Access wording is worth investigating |
| A-01 | A sample event table shows editing before the first share action. | Sharing belongs after editing in this example path |
These records do not establish how common either problem is. U-01 is not proof that invitations are always hard to find, and A-01 does not explain why someone waited to share. Avoid drawing a smooth emotion curve unless emotions were actually gathered. In a real project, retain the method, date, participant context, and source reference with each finding.
NN/G’s research guidance describes gathering first-hand journey accounts and adding quantitative evidence. Use both to deepen the story, not to make an assumption look researched.
Turn the notes into one readable map slide
For the synthetic case, use three stages: create workspace, prepare draft, and invite reviewer. Under each stage, show the task and the relevant record ID. Use a separate row for interpretation. That way the team can disagree with “the invitation action is poorly placed” while still agreeing that U-01 records a search.
| Stage | Customer task | Record | Possible explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Create workspace | Find a starting point | No sample record | Do not invent a pain point to fill the lane |
| Prepare draft | Make something worth reviewing | A-01 | The user may want content before inviting someone |
| Invite reviewer | Share the right material with the right person | U-01, U-02, S-01 | Action discovery and permission understanding may be separate issues |
If the slide becomes crowded, move source details to a companion slide. Keep the decision on the main map: is the next study about finding the invitation action, or understanding its access scope?
Compare two explanations before choosing a change
The fictional team has two hypotheses. H1: the invitation action is hard to locate. H2: people find it but hesitate because they cannot tell what access it grants. A more prominent button might help H1 while leaving H2 untouched. A clearer access summary might help H2 without changing navigation.
Present these as hypotheses, with the record that prompted each. Do not rank them by a made-up “impact score.” If the team lacks enough evidence to choose, propose a study that can distinguish them.
Finish with the question the next study will answer
A useful next study asks new workspace owners to send a draft to a colleague. Observe whether they find the action and whether they can explain the resulting access. Ask the access question before giving help; otherwise the facilitator may accidentally teach the answer.
The output is not “five users prove the redesign works.” It is a record of where participants looked, what they expected to share, what they misunderstood, and which explanation the next iteration should address. Keep the sample size and limitations with that record. If real event data is available, use it to assess the frequency of the path separately from the reasons found in sessions.
The final presentation slide can therefore ask for an owner and date for this study, rather than approval of an untested redesign. Create the journey deck in Presenti using your own record IDs, map, and competing explanations. Leave empty lanes empty when the evidence is missing.
