Summary: Even a technical error, when framed the right way, tells a powerful story about expectations, preparedness, and user experience. The message “The text you provided does not contain a main story that can be extracted and rewritten…” is more than just a system alert—it’s a missed signal between user intent and machine response. This blog explores what goes wrong when communication becomes transactional, not conversational, especially in systems designed to serve humans, not just execute code.
The Real Message Behind a System Error
At first glance, a JSON error saying, “account balance is not enough to run the query” might seem like a boring technical footnote. But pause a second. What this really says is:
- You asked for something.
- The system lacks the resources to fulfill it.
- The system gave up, and threw the problem back at you.
No empathy. No guidance. Just a locked gate and a notice to “recharge.” That isn’t just poor UX—it’s poor business. Because what if the user had no idea they even had a cap? Or they just burned through credits on failed attempts? Or worse: what if your system framed the error in a way that embarrasses the user, implying they did something wrong?
When Systems Fail To Speak Like Humans
Here’s the real problem: software is programmed by engineers, but used by humans. When an error message says “no story could be extracted,” what it really means is the programmer didn’t expect messy input—and didn’t plan for ambiguity. But users live in ambiguity. We say things halfway. We click buttons uncertainly. We make partial requests. And when software says, “I can’t help you because that wasn’t valid,” it fails the one job it had: to help.
Why Error Messages Should Be Written by Marketers, Not Engineers
Marketers are trained to ask, “What does this message make the user feel?” Engineers don’t usually ask that. That disconnect leads to sterile responses like the one we’re examining, which technically convey the issue but emotionally deflect responsibility back to the user. But what if we asked, like in a Chris Voss negotiation, “What’s really making this communication fail?”
The system didn’t negotiate. It didn’t mirror the user’s intent, or acknowledge the emotional friction of running into a hard wall. Instead, it handed over the problem and walked away. That’s not a partner. That’s a vending machine. And if the vending machine doesn’t deliver a product, we kick it. Or trust it less next time.
Designing for Empathy in Friction Points
Every error is a marketing opportunity in disguise. When users hit a wall, they’re paying attention. Frustrated, maybe. Confused, likely. But they are focused. And in that state, the brain is wide open to persuasion—but only if you approach it right. Let’s reframe the error message with Voss’s template:
- Label the emotion: “It looks like you were trying to get a result, but ran into a problem.”
- Mirror the user’s action: “You ran a query, and the system didn’t respond with what you expected.”
- Ask a calibrated question: “How can we make sure you get what you need next time?”
See the difference? One message blocks progress. The other opens a door. And the user feels like the system understands—and wants to help.
The Economics of Silence
Strategic silence is not just for negotiations. It’s valuable in systems communication too. When there’s an error, the knee-jerk instinct is to over-explain. But too much text creates overwhelm. A short pause—like a brief loading screen, or a stripped-back UX moment—gives space. Then, once the user regains curiosity, you gently ask: “Would you like help figuring this out?”
That’s not just design—that’s respect.
Don’t Be Afraid of ‘No’
The most powerful negotiation word in the English language is “No.” It doesn’t shut down conversation. It opens the door to figure out why. When a system says, “You don’t have enough credits,” and gives users the chance to reject or explore options—that’s where psychological safety enters. When people feel they can say ‘No’, they feel they’re in control.
And control is what creates trust. Trust builds retention. Retention fuels revenue. That’s the business case.
What This Teaches Marketers, Developers, and DTC Operators
Here’s the strategic insight: every negative moment in a product can become a loyalty engine—if you script it with empathy, authority, and clarity.
Do error messages tell users the problem is with them, or with the system’s limits? Do you invite frustrated users into a conversation, or do you send them back into the wild with a recharge prompt and a shrug?
This isn’t about code. It’s about power dynamics. And users feel when an organization cares about the relationship—or just the transaction. Warren warned us: people want validation for their struggles and encouragement for their dreams. Even when they mistype. Especially when the system hiccups.
Final Thought: If you’re running a SaaS product, a digital platform, or any system dependent on limited resources like credits or queries, treat failure states as high-leverage brand moments. Write your error points like they’re onboarding. Position your system as a friendly guide, not a bouncer. That’s the difference between churn and lifetime value.
#UXWriting #DigitalProductDesign #ErrorMessageStrategy #CustomerExperience #EmotionalUX #HumanCenteredDesign #NegotiationInUX #ChrisVossInTech
Featured Image courtesy of Unsplash and Algernai Hayes (7A6QfNXaRzk)
