Summary: While many expect technical messages to carry at least a trace of narrative or story, automated system responses are engineered for clarity and precision—not human connection. Let’s be blunt: a JSON error message about insufficient account balance has more in common with a stop sign than with a short story. Yet marketers, developers, and content producers stumble when trying to invent meaning where there is none. This post unpacks why it’s a mistake to treat data structures like stories, and how to handle such texts intelligently and professionally.
Stop Trying to Turn Error Codes into Meaningful Stories
It’s tempting to think every piece of content can be spun into something engaging. That’s marketing instinct—trying to connect emotionally. But when you’re handed a JSON block like:
{
"error": "InsufficientAccountBalance",
"message": "Your account does not have enough funds to perform this operation."
}
…you’re not being offered a character arc or conflict. You’re being given a stop signal—clear, impersonal, and immediate. There’s no protagonist here, no plot twist, just a system doing its job.
This is not failure. It’s design. Structures like this serve operations, not emotions. So when a client or internal stakeholder asks for this “story to be rewritten,” don’t start weaving fiction. Step back and ask: “What’s actually being asked here?” Then mirror it: “It sounds like you’re looking for a way to communicate what just happened in a more human voice?” Now we’re back in the driver’s seat.
Why Automated Messages Feel Cold—and Why That Matters
The function of a JSON response like this is clarity. Systems need to know exactly what’s wrong. It’s designed for machines first, humans second. So yes, it’s cold. But it works. This detachment creates friction when end users, customers, or managers get a hold of technical data and expect more warmth. That’s where misunderstanding begins and poor marketing content gets born.
Imagine a support rep says, “Rewrite this into a story,” but what they’re really saying is, “I need to show this message in a way users will understand without scaring them off or sounding like a machine.” That’s a different task. And once you clarify that with a calibrated question—”How human do you want this response to feel?”—you can start building something useful instead of decorative fluff.
The Risk of Misfitting Meaning to Structure
When you force narrative onto a transactional message, you introduce risk. Emotional tone where none is warranted can confuse users or stakeholders. Framing a system error as a “storyline” makes it sound dramatic—when in fact it’s routine. You wouldn’t narrate a printer jam like a hero’s quest; you’d just fix the jam.
And when your team sees you waste energy crafting story arcs around protocol errors, what are you signaling? That message precision isn’t a priority. That drama is more important than clarity. That’s a slippery slope, especially when audience trust is built on accuracy and brevity. So don’t be afraid to say no. Not every block of text should be treated like content marketing.
What to Do Instead: Translate, Don’t Reimagine
When you encounter a message like this, the better task is translation—not story building. Turn this:
"Your account does not have enough funds to perform this operation."
Into this:
“We couldn’t complete your request because your balance is too low. Please add funds and try again.”
That’s user-centered language. It’s clear, functional, and polite. Not warm and fuzzy. Just helpful. And it respects the original purpose of the message: alert and instruct.
So ask: “Should this message reassure the user, or simply inform them?” Silence works just as well here—let stakeholders sit with the difference between dramatizing and clarifying. Because most of the time, once they see the result of “simplified and useful” versus “overwritten and abstract,” they’ll choose dignity over drama.
System Messages Live Outside the Story Model
Let’s not pretend every digital interaction belongs in a Joseph Campbell outline. System messages are guardrails, not narratives. They set expectations and call for action. They don’t inspire. And that’s okay. There are better places in your funnel to build narrative—onboarding emails, demo scripts, explainer videos. But a JSON block? No. Respect that boundary—and protect your messaging hierarchy.
If everything’s a story, then nothing is a story. By keeping operational layers clear and lean, you give your real marketing content space to breathe and perform. If your meta message is “we care enough to keep this clean,” you just used Cialdini’s principle of Authority without even trying. Users spot that kind of discipline—and trust it.
A Closing Thought: Say No, Then Add Value
Chris Voss nailed it: the word “no” is powerful. It creates boundaries and higher-order solutions. So when someone asks you to “rewrite this JSON block into a story,” say no. Then follow it with: “Would it be more helpful if I rewrote it to make it more user-friendly?” This reframing builds Reciprocity because now you’re solving their real problem, not the imagined one.
You don’t win deals or build credibility by playing along with wrong requests. You win by redirecting them with empathy—and steering your team back on course with clarity. That’s persuasion with purpose. Doesn’t matter if you’re a marketer, a developer, or a product owner. Clear is kind. Confusing is expensive.
#ErrorMessaging #UXCopy #ClarityOverDrama #ContentDiscipline #MarketingWithLogic #ChrisVossInMarketing #NoIsPower #TranslateDontFictionalize #SaaSContentStrategy #EmotionalPrecision
More Info — Click HereFeatured Image courtesy of Unsplash and Egor Komarov (fNutHXwcoH8)
