Summary: At first glance, an error message may seem unworthy of a detailed breakdown—just an obstacle, a dead-end, a shrug moment before we click away. But what if the error message itself is telling you something deeper about user expectations, service design, communication clarity, and transactional trust? This post explores how a so-called “non-story” like a funding error gives us insight into design choices, communication breakdowns, and customer perception of value and disruption.
Error Messages Are Still Communication
When a user sees something like, “There is no story to extract from the given text. The text appears to be an error message or response from a service, likely related to an insufficient account balance or funds to run a query. The text does not contain a narrative or story that can be rewritten. It simply provides information about an error that occurred, the error code, and a message requesting the user to recharge their account.”—a lot more has gone wrong than just insufficient balance. This is a breakdown in narrative, expectation, and utility. The user came for an answer. What they got was a wall of disappointment dressed in technical lingo.
Now ask yourself: what would make someone say, “there is no story to extract”? And is that a reasonable response in a service-based context? Let’s break it down. Every touchpoint with your service, including how you deliver bad news, matters. Especially the bad ones. Because that’s when users are most alert, most emotional, most ready to decide whether to keep trusting you—or walk away.
When Non-Stories Become Stories
People don’t just tell stories with words. They tell stories with expectations. Think of a SaaS user, querying a service expecting a result. That intent, wrapped in trust, time, and sometimes money, creates a micro-narrative. The user believes, “I will input A and receive B.” When the result is instead: “error code: insufficient funds”, what you’ve actually delivered is a failed promise.
And when you brush that off with a cold message like “no story here,” you’re effectively telling the user that their expectation—maybe even their business question—was pointless. You’re robbing them of resolution while simultaneously punishing them with ambiguity. That’s not just poor UX; that’s bad business.
Users Don’t Fail. You Do.
One of the deeper lessons buried in this bland-looking error is this: never assume the fault lies with the user. If you built something where they can “fail” routinely, then what you’ve built isn’t done. A transparent service would say:
- Why the error happened (plain language, not just “error code 1109”).
- What’s required to fix it (like the exact recharge amount, or a direct payment link).
- What was being attempted when the failure triggered (so the user knows context).
And then it offers a clear next step, not a dead-end. Strategic silence might work in negotiation, but in transactional design, silence at the wrong moment gets interpreted as incompetence—or arrogance. Which leads us to the next point…
Don’t Be Vague. Be Human.
Telling the user “please recharge your account” after failing their query isn’t helpful unless it explains what the recharge achieves. Is this per query? Per megabyte? Per month? Does the recharge allow you to retry the last request, or do you start over?
Vagueness erodes trust. Clarity invites action. If your competitor simply explains what their error means while you hide behind “no story here,” they’re going to win—not because they were better, but because they were clearer.
Ask yourself: from the user’s side, how would it feel to get that message unexpectedly? What emotions does it trigger—confusion, frustration, panic, concern that something’s broken or they’ve done something wrong? And how could you rewrite the same moment to acknowledge those feelings while still reinforcing service reliability?
What Price Does an Error Cost?
One failed transaction can lose you a customer. Not because they were cheap, or impatient, but because they didn’t feel seen. That’s where Chris Voss’s principle of tactical empathy kicks in. Ask, “What just happened for them emotionally?” not just “What technically failed?”
That perspective shift—from technical to emotional—is where professional communication earns its keep. Every great service brands itself at the edge of failure: how it recovers, how it keeps dignity intact, how it turns a “no” into a continued dialogue.
The Illusion of Non-Story: Why You Should Care
A non-story is a story. It’s just one you didn’t write with care. It’s a gap you left unspoken. And your users will fill that vacuum with frustration, suspicion, or worse—abandonment. Just because it’s not a tale of triumph doesn’t mean it doesn’t matter.
This is where the Cialdini stack lines up perfectly. Reciprocation? Give clarity, get trust. Liking? Speak in the user’s language. Authority? Show you understand both technical and emotional realities. Commitment? When users recharge, acknowledge the effort. Social proof? Share how other users navigated this same situation—make them feel they’re not alone or foolish.
Ultimately, a service that instructs rather than blames will always outperform a system that hides behind formality and error codes. Don’t say “there’s no story here.” Say, “Here’s what happened. You’re not alone. Let’s fix it.”
The Real Cost of Cold Language
When someone hears, “There is no story to extract,” they don’t just feel dismissed. They feel invalid. That phrasing tells people their issue or moment wasn’t worth reflection. In branding terms, that’s value erosion. In economic terms, that’s churn risk. In human terms, that’s callous.
Every service interaction either strengthens trust or weakens it. There is no neutral ground. So why send a message that tells your user, implicitly or explicitly, that their distress isn’t worthy of a better explanation?
So—What Should the Message Say Instead?
Try this structure:
- Empathize: “It looks like your last query couldn’t be completed because your current balance doesn’t cover the required amount.”
- Inform: “We never charge without delivering results—but we also want you to know what to expect.”
- Direct: “Recharge now to resume your query exactly where you left off.”
- Support: “Need help understanding what this means? [Contact link]”
Notice how that version doesn’t just spell out the facts, but frames the situation as temporary, cooperative, and recoverable. That’s what keeps people coming back.
No message is neutral. Every point of service communication speaks not just to function, but to values, attention to detail, and perception of users. Even an error message becomes a chance to reaffirm brand identity, build relational trust, and convert momentary frustration into loyalty.
So the next time someone says, “There’s no story here,” you should probably ask: “Then why did the user leave feeling like they’re not part of one?”
#ServiceDesign #UXMatters #ErrorMessages #TransactionalTrust #CustomerCentric #UXStrategy #ClarityOverConfusion #FundedQueryFail #MarketingWithEmpathy
Featured Image courtesy of Unsplash and Ilya Semenov (6uFROinaC3g)
