Summary: Too many professionals overcomplicate technology errors, chasing ghosts in code when the real issue sits plainly on the screen. Take this example—a JSON error message stating an insufficient account balance. It’s not encrypted wisdom. It’s not an untold story. It isn’t even content. It’s a plain mechanical message doing its job: telling the user, “You didn’t pay.” But people miss this. They try to extract significance or repackage it. That’s confusion at work, and confusion kills both user confidence and business conversion. Let’s dissect why clarity beats narrative in these cases and how marketers and developers alike should react when the machine simply says ‘No.’
What the Message Really Says
The file presented is JSON—a structured language used by servers to communicate. It is not prose, not user-facing copy, not a user story. It’s a format speaking directly to applications, often parsed automatically, not intended for human-friendly storytelling. What it says is simple: an operation was attempted (likely a query, maybe a database call), but it failed because the account associated with the user didn’t have enough funds to execute it. The expected flow was interrupted because the preconditions—namely, payment—weren’t met.
There Is Nothing To Rewrite—And That’s the Point
Trying to reinterpret this as anything other than what it factually represents misunderstands the purpose of structured messages. Some marketers and communicators feel every message must be “content.” This is a mistake. When a machine returns a process failure, especially with self-describing metadata like status codes, request types, and action recommendations, we shouldn’t fabricate context. We should respect its clarity. JSON is the language of function, not fiction.
“Recharge Your Balance” Is Not a Plot Twist
Too many look for arcs—conflict, climax, resolution—where there is none. Error messages aren’t arc-driven; they’re instructive. In this case, the instruction is simple. The attempted action was stopped by lack of funds. The path forward is recharge. That’s it. There’s no deeper story, no character motivation, no brand drama. It’s a strictly functional directive. Take action, or the system won’t respond. Any rewrite would be interference, not interpretation.
The Danger of Overanalyzing Simplicity
Over-strategizing these messages leads to poor product design. When teams over-discuss plain functional problems as “storytelling opportunities,” they waste cycles and delay real fixes. Misplaced storytelling confuses developers, frustrates users, and dilutes useful alerts. It also erodes trust. Users want solutions, not metaphors. They want quick, clear answers. Not poetry. Mislabeling technical boundaries as communication failures is like blaming the speed limit for not getting to your meeting on time. It’s a misdirection of responsibility.
Yes Sets the Trap—No Shows the Path
If you want to improve the user experience in these situations, start by asking the right questions. Instead of asking, “How can we say this better?” ask, “Why wasn’t this understood immediately?” Then mirror: “So it failed because their balance was too low?” Hold silence. Let your engineers or marketers think. That pause triggers self-correction. Now you’ve turned misinterpretation into a feedback loop, and you’ve protected your team from chasing false assumptions.
Empathy Lies in Respecting Signals
This isn’t cold. Empathy in technical systems means making expectations clear, consequences predictable, and actions recoverable. That’s how you help users win. It’s not about decorating the message with emotional color. You don’t need to console someone for not topping up their balance. You need to make the immediate actions obvious and frictionless. In some systems, this may mean offering the payment link right there. Done. Next move.
When Marketing Tries Too Hard
Many marketers feel the urge to rewrite everything into a customer-facing brand moment. Here, that instinct backfires. Turning an error into a story confuses the nature of the problem. It encourages misreading. Worse, it positions branding where friction should be removed. If a customer is being stopped from completing their task, the right thing is to remove the block—not narrate it.
The More Honest Message Wins
This is where Cialdini comes in. Authority rests in precision. Reciprocity grows from trust. You give the user clarity, and they reward you with continued interaction. Simplicity under pressure earns loyalty. Don’t bait people with emotional language when you need to deliver straight operational truth. Just be clear. Write like you’re solving a problem because you are.
So, What Should You Actually Do?
Here’s how smart developers and product marketers should respond to this type of scenario:
- Label the message correctly: This is not content, it’s feedback.
- Keep structure readable: Even machine messages can be human-friendly with clean formatting.
- Add contextual help: Offer next steps without turning it into a drama (e.g., “Click here to recharge”).
- Don’t interfere with mechanics: These messages are meant to be predictable, not persuasive stories.
- Use human language where it fits: Keep JSON for machines, place any user copy in UI—not back-end returns.
Final Thought: Stop Where the Machine Speaks Clearly
Don’t explain what doesn’t need explaining. Don’t decorate what needs instructing. And don’t tell a story when a fix is what’s needed. Respect the tools of your craft—whether that’s code, copy, or cash. And remember: failure messages like this aren’t setbacks. They are system honesty. That’s your chance to meet user expectations while setting industry standards for clarity.
#TechnicalClarity #UXWriting #JSONErrors #ProductCommunication #RealTalkMarketing #CialdiniInPractice #BlairWarrenPrinciples #ChrisVossMethodology
Featured Image courtesy of Unsplash and Ilya Semenov (6uFROinaC3g)
