Summary: Too many junior marketers and content freelancers fall into a trap when reviewing technical content: they confuse data format for intent. Here's a case in point—a JSON error response, crystal clear in what it's telling us, gets flagged for rewriting as if it’s an incomplete story. Let’s break this down, not to belabor the point, but to set an unequivocal standard for evaluating technical messages. Professionals don't waste time editing clarity into what's already clear.
Understanding the Nature of the Text
The message—{"error":"insufficient_funds","message":"Account balance too low for requested operation."}—is a machine-generated response from an API or system endpoint that’s attempting to carry out a financial transaction. It tells the user or the developer a simple fact: “You don’t have enough money in your account to complete this operation.” This isn't prose. It’s a transactional status originating from a server. That’s not storytelling. That’s system logic doing its job.
This is not raw website text. It’s not an article waiting to be rewritten, nor is it content in need of polish. It's code communicating succinctly with its intended audience—developers, payment handlers, or automated systems. That audience values precision over tone, and utility over narrative. There’s nothing broken here, so there’s nothing to fix.
When Precision Beats Interpretation
This kind of response exists in backend pipelines and log files. It doesn’t need to “engage” anyone. It’s meant to trigger one of two reactions:
- Try the transaction again with a different account.
- Tell your user to add funds.
That’s it. If a dev receives this as JSON, they don’t scratch their head and wonder, “What’s the story here?” They parse it and hand off the meaning to the user interface layer without interpretation. If you're trying to force narrative onto a diagnostic message, the problem isn’t the message—it’s your understanding of communication layers in technical systems.
The Pitfall of Over-Interpretation
Let’s confront what’s really going on when someone tries to “extract a story” from this JSON error. They’re struggling with abstraction. Maybe they’re new to software development. Maybe they’re used to dealing with UX copy or marketing language. Either way, they’re misapplying their toolset.
This isn’t a failure of the content itself. It’s a moment of mismatch between purpose and interpretation. And here’s the strategic question that every team should ask when working cross-functionally:
“What was this message meant to do, and who was it meant for?”
That’s a mirror technique from Chris Voss: repeat the core of the concern. In this case, you’re not being difficult by pushing back. You’re asking the other side to re-evaluate their assumptions with clarity.
Acknowledge the Good Instinct—Then Redirect
There’s a good instinct buried in this misunderstanding, and that’s where persuasion comes in. Many junior content editors and marketers are taught to look for ways to make content more accessible. That instinct is gold—it shows empathy, and empathy builds trust.
But the teachable moment is this: accessibility isn’t always about rewriting. Sometimes it’s simply about routing the message to the right level of the stack. Systems talk to systems in raw data. People talk to people in processed UI messages. Mixing the two introduces noise, not clarity.
Say No Without Slamming the Door
When someone asks, “Should we rewrite this JSON error?” the right answer is “No.” That ‘No’ matters—it defines boundaries of meaning and saves everyone time. But it's a constructive ‘No’—one that opens conversation, not shuts it down:
“No. This message wasn’t meant to be human-facing. Why do you think we need to rewrite this—who’s the actual end user?”
This invites clarity, empathy, and a constructive pause. Maybe their real concern isn’t the JSON at all—it’s how that JSON gets surfaced to the user. Now you’ve got a real problem to solve, and a team that’s talking about the right layer of the stack.
Consistency and Authority
If your team works in product, design, or marketing, make this a written standard: System messages are not candidates for creative editing unless they surface at the user interface level. Commit to it. Stick to it. You’ll save your team dozens of hours and avoid muddying up system logic with unnecessary semiotics.
And yes, developers and system architects need to feel your consistency here. That’s one of Cialdini’s principles—commitment and consistency builds credibility over time. Make this your team’s default interpretation framework, and you'll become the go-to for structured clarity.
Final Thought: Don’t Fix What Isn’t Broken
You wouldn’t rewrite a fire alarm to make it sound more lyrical. You wouldn’t translate a critical alert into marketing speak. JSON error messages aren’t broken storytelling—they’re exact communication in engineered systems. Learn to see that, and you’ll waste less energy rewriting output that’s already doing its job just fine.
So next time someone says, “This doesn’t look like a raw website needing a story extracted,” confirm their suspicion. Tell them they’re right. And more importantly, show them why. That’s how you build authority without arrogance. And that’s how you teach without preaching.
#TechnicalWriting #JSONErrors #ContentClarity #ProductCommunication #SystemMessaging #UXWriting #MarketingForDevelopers #PersuasiveCommunication
Featured Image courtesy of Unsplash and Fernando Hernandez (pOmr_qQRgiU)