Summary: A technical error message is not a narrative. It lacks structure, character, and conflict—everything that makes up a story. What we’re dealing with instead is a machine telling a human: “You don’t have the credits to do what you just asked me to do. Please add funds.” This message is not a plot twist. It’s a stop sign. This blog post will clarify why trying to extract storytelling out of a system error like this confuses function with meaning—and why that distinction matters in communication, messaging, and user design.
Why This Isn’t a Story
Storytelling depends on several rules—cause and effect, stakes, resolution. A narrative needs a protagonist with a goal, facing obstacles, making decisions under pressure, and possibly changing by the end. A JSON error response has none of that. It’s just structured data letting you know your request failed due to insufficient funds.
In this particular case, the response delivers a static outcome. There’s no internal conflict, no unfolding drama, and certainly no character growth. What’s happening here is procedural. Cold. Robotic. It serves a purpose, not a message. So what happens when someone misinterprets this as a story?
Confusing Output with Outcome
When you treat a machine message like narrative, you’re ignoring what it is—just output. The system didn’t fail to deliver drama; it succeeded in delivering function. This confusion often happens in tech-heavy environments where people are desperate to pull content out of any object they encounter.
Here’s the crucial thing: mechanical clarity is not narrative meaning. A lot of modern marketing goes off the rails by pretending every interaction is a moment in a story. But not every signal is a story signal. Sometimes, it’s just a systems message saying: “No.” That’s useful, and pretending it’s more undermines both the message and the medium.
“Insufficient Funds” – What It Really Means
Let’s focus on what the actual content tells us: the user attempted to run a query, failed, and got an error about needing to add balance. This is not an emotional journey. It is a transaction failure. Now, it could be part of someone’s story—but it is not a story on its own.
So rather than trying to extract nonexistent plotlines, the better move is to ask:
- Why do users run into this scenario?
- What friction exists in the recharging process?
- What emotional state does a user enter when they hit this wall? Frustration? Confusion?
- And how can we empathize with that moment without rewriting the error into fiction?
Instead of contriving fake stories, we can build better systems, reduce surprise, and offer clearer calls to action. That’s how you turn friction into loyalty—by responding to real emotions in a clear, helpful way.
The Value of Stating “No” Clearly
Chris Voss, in Never Split the Difference, teaches the power of “No.” This kind of error message is “No” in its purest form. No room for negotiation. No ambiguity. And ironically, that’s what creates the opportunity for dialogue—because it pushes the user to act: Do they want to proceed? Are they ready to invest? Or is it time to say goodbye?
When most companies try to cushion every dead end, they lose the power of clarity. Just like in negotiations, uncertainty erodes trust. Direct answers build it. Saying “No” cleanly lets the user re-engage on their terms. That’s persuasive, not obstructive.
Respect the User’s Intelligence
Storytelling is often overused as a default framework. In this case, pretending there’s a hidden story insults the intelligence of both the sender and receiver. The better approach is respecting the user’s current position—which may be frustrated, confused, or even indifferent—and providing them meaningful next steps instead of a forced narrative.
Respect also means resisting the temptation to explain away failure with fluff. No metaphors. No storytelling gloss. Just service design that recognizes what happened, why it happened, and what can be done to fix it. That earns trust. That builds future value.
The Real Takeaway for Marketers and Product Teams
This response text reveals a product bottleneck. And that’s where the story really exists—not in the JSON, but in the patterns around it. When do users typically hit this message? Are they caught by surprise? Is the balance check buried too deep in the interface? Are support links easy to reach within the error text?
If you want to find story, look there. Watch the user struggle. See what choices they make and what friction they encounter. That’s where emotion enters the picture—because it’s tied to purpose, intention, and resistance. It’s usable insight, not abstract theory.
Turning Data Failures into Design Wins
Rather than rewriting technical messages into something they’re not, put effort where it counts: solve the user’s next problem. Here’s how you do that:
- Introduce friction earlier if it avoids dead ends later. Show balance before the query form.
- Make upgrading frictionless—one-click payment methods, preloaded options, or auto-reload.
- Rewrite error messages with empathy, not flair: “Your account needs a lift. Add credits to keep going.”
- Test flow—where users drop off, not just where they get errors.
That’s how you turn a support burden into a customer retention advantage. Because what people remember is how you treated them when things went wrong. Cold data can’t do that. Smart design can.
Trying to pull story from a system message is like trying to pull poetry from your utility bill. You might think you’re making something meaningful—but mostly, you’re just confusing message with medium. Instead, look at the real world around the message and meet real users with real responses. That’s the job.
#UserDesign #ClearMessaging #ErrorUX #NoMeansOpportunity #ThinkBeforeYouNarrate
Featured Image courtesy of Unsplash and ahmad gunnaivi (OupUvbC_TEY)
