Summary: Technical errors rarely get written about in plain language, yet behind every error, there’s a story—a failure in expectation, a system clash, a friction point between user and machine. The message “InsufficientBalanceError” might seem like just another JSON code snipped from a log file to most. But to the user, it’s where the conversation ends, often badly. For marketers, developers, and product managers, this isn’t a dead end. It’s an opportunity for clarity, trust-building, and good design to shine. Let’s dissect what went wrong, why that matters, and what should happen next—because problems don’t exist in a vacuum.
What Is an “InsufficientBalanceError” Really Saying?
Strip away the JSON syntax, and what you have is a breakdown in a transaction. A user tried to do something—they tried to pay, send, upgrade, withdraw, or activate. The system said, “That’s not allowed. You don’t have enough funds.” But that simple refusal lacks context, empathy, and actionability. Think about that: the system declares you’ve fallen short without telling you how short, why, or what to do about it.
Now ask yourself: what does that feel like if you’re on the receiving end? Disorienting. Frustrating. Unclear. Especially if you’re not sure what balance is required, or whether there’s a glitch. That’s a communications failure, not just a code failure.
Why Default Error Language Breaks Down Trust
Errors like these aren’t just technical—they’re public relations events in miniature. Every error message is a brand message, and this one says, “We’re not prepared to guide you.” Think about the user flow: someone takes the time to engage with your system, willingly spends their attention and intent, and right at the close—no explanation, no recourse, just rejection. How often have you experienced that online and said, “Forget it, I’m not coming back”?
Chris Voss’s negotiation strategy reminds us of something important here: when someone hears “no,” they shouldn’t shut down—they should lean in. But only if it’s framed the right way. A productive “no” creates boundaries and opens up the real conversation. An unproductive “no” kills it.
Framing Errors with Empathy and Precision
Let’s reframe the cold JSON response into something human. What if, instead of showing:
{
"error": "InsufficientBalanceError",
"message": "Your balance is too low to complete this transaction.",
"code": 403
}
…the application said:
“It looks like you’re trying to send more than your current balance. You’re short by $7.25—would you like to add funds or adjust the amount?”
Now we’ve mirrored the user’s intent. We’ve labeled their constraint. We’ve invited them to action instead of shutting them down. That’s useful. That’s persuasive. It confirms their suspicion that the system didn’t just break—it’s actually watching carefully. It also follows Voss’s tactical empathy: we’re showing we understand their frustration, without glossing over the limits.
Why Generic Error Messages Multiply Support Tickets
Here’s where bad copy becomes bad economics. Vague errors cost your company in support tickets, hurt user retention, and damage platform trust. Product managers forget that every unclear message sends users into one of three wasteful spirals:
- They open a ticket and burn your support team’s time.
- They leave the platform and stop trying.
- They attempt workarounds and cause bigger issues downstream.
The simplest fix? Clarity and proactive friction. Meaning: show the problem, quantify it, propose the next step. You turn a “no” into an opening move. Give the user back their sense of control. They want to continue—not start over, not abandon ship, not curse at vague errors. Are you making that possible?
What’s the Business Risk of Mishandling Technical Errors?
If all this feels like semantics, think again. One “InsufficientBalanceError” that’s encountered during checkout can mean thousands in lost revenue over time if the experience isn’t repaired. Now multiply that by every transactional touchpoint—pricing plan upgrades, feature unlocks, subscription renewals. These aren’t edge cases. They’re core business operations.
What’s more, unclear errors violate a key principle from Cialdini—Consistency. If a user believes your platform is high-quality yet gets a robotic, cryptic rejection during payment, there’s cognitive dissonance. That tension becomes distrust. And in digital systems, users rarely give you the benefit of the doubt more than once.
Designing Better Interaction With Better Language
When writing your product’s error messages, ask:
- What did the user try to do? Mirror that action back to them.
- What condition stopped them? Show the exact threshold.
- What can they do next? Offer a clear path forward.
This approach reflects Reciprocity (give the user a meaningful, helpful message), builds Consistency (match the brand tone and UX quality), and grows Authority (show you’re competent even in technical matters). Users respect structure, not chaos. Are your systems telling structured stories?
When Machines Talk Human: A Competitive Advantage
All things being equal, the app that makes the fewest users feel stupid wins. Good UX writing isn’t poetic—it’s clear. Mistakes happen. Funds run low. Transactions fail. That’s not the real failure. The real failure is treating these moments as technical dead ends instead of human inflection points. That’s an avoidable mistake.
When you speak like a human—but with the precision and credibility of a professional—you build loyalty. That’s persuasion. That’s authority. That’s marketing. And in an ocean of dry error logs, it’s also how you stand out.
Final Word: The next time your platform throws an “InsufficientBalanceError,” ask yourself—did we invite the user to keep going? Or did we send them packing in silence? Most broken flows aren’t technical—they’re linguistic, emotional, experiential. Fix that first.
#UXWriting #ProductDesign #ErrorMessages #HumanCenteredDesign #CustomerExperience #SaaSMarketing
Featured Image courtesy of Unsplash and Markus Winkler (-q8MdTL2998)
