Great idea. I worked on Wall Street and there was a tool portfolio managers used called a heat map. The total map was a large rectangle broken up into smaller squares and each square was an individual stock. When a square was a large investment it was a larger square than others. When the stock was up it was a shade of green. If it was up big it was a brighter shade of green. The reverse was true with red.
To go off of this idea, visualization could use color coding if someone is ahead of or behind plan for the year in a spending/savings category. Maybe there are different squares like house, car, clothing, education, groceries, etc. At the outset of the year or smaller time period a person can set a goal for how much they will spend in that period on a given category. As they move through time the squares are green if they are under budget and red if they are over budget. If car repairs make the car square red, the person can realize they need to be green elsewhere to be overall neutral with their budget.
Another idea is to have a savings account, like a 401k, and put its square inside a larger square to show where it needs to eventually get to in size upon retirement.
This game sounds like it has a lot of potential. Is it possible to use this to expand the idea of a deck of cards to a full fledged board game? I have in mind a modified version of Monopoly. If you think about Monopoly, it doesn't mimic financial management in real life. The money you are paid by people is only used to buy more property. It doesn't earn interest or an investment return while it is in your hand and you can't spend it on anything else beside property, such as living expenses, emergency situations that come up, education, clothing, vacation. Also, when you move around the board in Monopoly it doesn't cost you anything but when you move around in real life (commute to work) there is a cost associated with it (gas, car payment, etc.) After so much time of playing the clock will run out and it will be time to retire and whoever has the most in net worth could be the winner of the game.
This is a solid idea. The issue will be for the bank to offer enough of an incentive to make it worthwhile to the consumer and still be able to turn a profit. In your scenario, the bank spends about $500 or more to acquire a customer. A partner bank would have to compare that to their current acquisition cost for new customers to understand if it is better or worse. They typically aren't interested in spending a lot on demographics that won't be able to bank a lot with them (teenagers) so this may be a stretch. However, the way to sell a bank on this is to market the idea to high school students, especially promising ones, who may be loyal to the bank over time if they get started saving with them in their early years. Because interest rates are currently so low, nobody is incentivized to save much because the return of 1% isn't as appealing as spending that amount of money on something today. There needs to be a happy medium and banks will need to view this as a marketing expense and not as a detriment to their 'net interest income', which is essentially banker speak for 'sales', but is crucially important.