DoorList
I put the bouncer's name on every scan, and a million entries can't be faked.
Role
Lead Product Designer
Timeline
Feb 2024 – Sep 2025
Company
DoorList, B2B safety platform
Outcome
1M+ events across 200+ schools
HERO VIDEO (5 to 10 sec loop, 16:9, muted, autoplay). What to capture: the moment the scan happens. Show the bouncer-facing scanner screen as a real guest's code comes up green, the bouncer's own name and photo visible at the top of the screen, timestamp stamping in. Cut or dissolve to the IFC live dashboard showing scans populating across multiple events in real time. End on the log with a single entry highlighted. Dark lighting, warm product UI glow. No people's faces on camera. If video is too heavy a lift, a single hero IMAGE works: a composited product shot of the scanner UI + the IFC dashboard + a timeline log, arranged as one editorial frame.
01 / The problem
At every frat party, hundreds of guests are kept safe by one bouncer with a spreadsheet.
Greek events aren't open parties. They're closed communities with hundreds of guests, alcohol, and real liability. The list at the door is the only thing keeping the wrong person out.
| A | B | C | D | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | SPRING FORMAL 2024 — GUEST LIST | |||
| 2 | ||||
| 3 | President: | Jake Miller | ||
| 4 | VP: | Connor Webb | ||
| 5 | Risk Mgr: | Tyler Jones | ||
| 6 | Sober bros: | Alex K, Mike T, Sam P, Brandon??? | ||
| 7 | ||||
| 8 | NAME | MEMBER | YEAR | +1? |
| 9 | emily rodriguez | Tyler J | jr | yes |
| 10 | Madison Rivera | Connor W | sr | no |
| 11 | MADDIE R. | Connor?? | sr | — |
| 12 | Ashley | Sam | +1 | |
| 13 | Jess + friend | Brandon | jr | YES |
| 14 | ... | |||
| 15 | ||||
| 16 | ||||
These parties carry real risk: drugged drinks, sexual assault, strangers in the house.
Many depend on this list, but only one controls it.
The IFC is the Interfraternity Council. They sanction, suspend, and close chapters based on what the list shows. The guest depends on it for safety. But only the bouncer touches it directly, and only the bouncer can decide whether what's on it is true.
Guest
Depends on the list to keep them safe.
Bouncer
Controls the list at the door.
IFC
Judges chapters by what the list shows.
Following the incident at your Spring Formal on March 8, 2025, your chapter is placed under immediate social suspension. All hosted events, philanthropy functions, and recruitment activities are prohibited pending review. Within five business days, submit:
- A complete guest list from the event
- Any entry records available
- Names of all brothers on duty at the door
DoorList shipped a QR scanner, but the records still weren't being kept.
The scanner replaced the spreadsheet. But scanning a QR code isn't the same as knowing who's at the door, and it isn't the same as making someone accountable for letting them in.
What was missing
Gap 01
Identity
The code didn't prove who was behind it.
Gap 02
Record
Nothing got captured that could be reviewed later.
Gap 03
Accountability
The bouncer's decision wasn't on anyone's record.
02 / What I did
When the CEO wanted better records, I went to the door and found bouncers pocketing the phone.
I spent three weekends at the door and two more in interviews. Some bouncers were paid, some weren't. Some nights the phone couldn't connect in a crowded house. And once a bouncer recognized a name on the list, the phone went in the pocket and the guest got waved through.
From bouncer interviews
“Once I knew someone was on the list, I just waved them through. Felt rude to stop and scan.”
“Line gets long, phone stops connecting, you just go off memory after a while.”
“Nobody was actually checking whether I scanned people in. Who was I doing it for?”
When I proposed putting his name on every scan, the CEO pushed back: bouncers were the smallest user.
Bouncers were the smallest user group. The product's growth depended on students, not bouncers. Engineering capacity was finite. The objection was protecting something real.
So I asked him what made our records real: whether the bouncer chose to scan.
I didn't argue with him. The way to change someone's mind isn't to tell them they're wrong. It's to ask the questions that get them to the answer themselves. Every entry log, every relationship signal, every incident timeline we sold to IFC routed through one tired person at the door choosing whether to scan. Without bouncer accountability, our safety feature was a marketing claim with no record behind it.
The scan wasn't safety. A record was, and the accountability it enforced.
Speed had never been the bottleneck. Trust had. A safety system that depends on a tired person choosing to use it isn't a system. It's a policy with a login screen.
03 / The impact
I made the smallest user the most visible one.
I prototyped two directions: one that made scanning faster, one that made the bouncer visible on the record. The second tested better, because speed had never been the problem.
Every guest tied to a verified identity. Every scan stamped with the bouncer's name and a time no one could edit after the fact. Every guest flow identical, so familiarity couldn't unlock a shortcut. The log also captured who each guest arrived with, and a network of known relationships built up across events.
Annotated product screenshot of the bouncer-facing scanner: their own name and photo visible at the top, an identical confirmation flow regardless of whether the guest is recognized, entry stamp with timestamp, and the relationship graph view showing guests arrive in clusters.
Selected design decisions
Decision 01
The bouncer's name and photo on every scan.
Accountability only lands if they see themselves on the record.
Decision 02
An identical flow for every guest.
Recognition can't unlock a shortcut.
Decision 03
The log captures who each guest arrived with.
A guest is never alone, they arrive with a network.
Decision 04
Entry timestamps are immutable after the fact.
The record can't be rewritten when a story gets inconvenient.
IFC saw every scan live.
Hosts confirm risk management before doors open. Bouncers check in with their name attached. The council that decides whether a chapter survives sees the night unfolding in real time, not after the call comes.
A student arrived already intoxicated. Five minutes later, an ambulance came. The timestamp told the whole story.
IFC was about to hold the host fraternity responsible. The log showed five minutes between her scan and the call. Nobody gets that intoxicated in five minutes, and the data proved the hosts weren't at fault.
Bouncers stopped pocketing the phone.
Their name on screen meant the cost of waving someone through landed on them. Adoption stopped depending on enforcement.
Hosts stopped being one bad night from a sanction.
What I hadn't predicted was what the log did for the hosts. When something went wrong, the evidence protected them from blame they'd otherwise carry. A safety feature became a liability shield. The product became indispensable to the people running the events, not just the people attending them.
Press
“The SCIFC Greek ID Card, powered by DoorList, represents a new level of safety for fraternity events at Penn State.”
National Law Review · 2025
Read articleGuests said they felt safer.
The relationship graph meant strangers couldn't walk in with someone the system already knew. The door became a system with context, not a checkpoint.
One million entries across two hundred chapters.
Guest lists that can't be faked. Entry logs that can't be disputed. A safety system that doesn't depend on a person deciding to enforce it.
The bouncer carried the entire system. So I put his name on the record.