Your Error Message Isn’t Just Wrong—It’s Costing You Users, Trust, and Money 

Summary: What happens when your product, site, or API sends out a cold, technical response like: “I apologize, but the text you provided does not appear to be a website text with a main story that needs to be extracted and rewritten. The text you provided seems to be a JSON response with an error message indicating an insufficient account balance”? At first glance, it looks like a routine server message caught in a tangle of developer logic. But read between the lines—it’s a sales opportunity turned into a dead end. This isn’t just a technical error. It’s a missed conversation. In this piece, we’re going to look at how such error messages damage trust, reveal failure points in product thinking, and what smart marketers and engineers must do differently. When Systems Talk Like Bureaucrats, Users Stop Listening That default text—sterile, apologetic, and entirely out of context—is like walking up to a locked bank door with no sign on it. Not only are you locked out, but you’re told it’s your fault somehow for not having enough money. Messages like “insufficient account balance” aren’t really about balances. They’re about friction. The system knew what the user wanted: a story extracted and rewritten. But instead of helping or redirecting, it passed the problem back to the user in a robotic tone that’s as helpful as the phrase “computer says no.” Think about how callbacks work in conversations. People don’t want a dead answer. They want next steps. A real support message should reflect clarity, relevance, and next action calls. But more than that, it should honor the user’s intent. What did they expect to happen? How will they feel when they hit this wall? What Does a Message Like This Cost You? Let’s be blunt. Every unclear error message is a point of dropout. Every technical dead end is a user thinking, “Forget it.” How many potential renewals, signups, or upgrades are lost because of cold language that takes no responsibility? Let’s mirror what the user is actually experiencing: They’re unsure if they did something wrong, or if the system is broken. They don’t know what “insufficient” means—how much balance was required? They don’t know where to go or who to talk to fix it. Now layer in emotion. They may be embarrassed. Frustrated. Unsure whether they even want to continue. And here’s where Blair Warren’s formula meets Voss’s negotiation principles. People don’t act because they understand something; they act because they feel understood. Does your messaging make them feel understood… or dismissed? You’re Not Just Sending an Error Message—You’re Sending a Brand Message When your software, API, or app responds to a failure event, it’s a moment of truth. Users learn more about your company when things go wrong than when everything goes smoothly. Fact: money hides problems, but pressure reveals design flaws. A well-designed failure message should do three things quickly: Frame the situation clearly: “We couldn’t rewrite your content because what you entered wasn’t a website story.” Simple, direct, and specific. Offer clarity about what went wrong: “Our engine expected a block of webpage text but received a system error message instead.” Give them one confident next step: “Paste in an article or content block you want reworded, or check that your subscription handles advanced feature access.” By treating error logic as human-to-human communication—not just machine-to-machine blips—you build credibility. You set the user back on the rails. That’s persuasion through clarity. Want Respect and Retention? Respect the Frustration Empathy isn’t a buzzword. It’s a strategy. When you make the wrong assumption about user input, apologize, but then absorb the weight of the mistake. Don’t hand it off to the customer like a hot potato coded in JSON. Ask yourself: If I were staring at this message at 11:42 PM, trying to hit a deadline, what would help me keep going? Or better yet… what would make me feel like this company actually values my time? You don’t build “retention” with dashboards. You build it by reducing the emotional tax your users pay when they encounter errors. That means plain language, relevant links, meaningful retries, and human-sounding explanations. Rewriting Isn’t About Grammar—It’s About Giving the User a Hand The fact that this user wanted to rewrite a text block means they had purpose. Their ask might’ve been a bit messy, too vague, or lacking structure—but that’s a golden moment. If your system saw that intent and converted it into a dead-end message instead of a smart redirect, you’re bleeding value. Imagine if the response had acknowledged the user’s effort and gently corrected the direction: “Looks like you entered an error log instead of a website story. No worries—happens all the time. Try pasting a piece of content you’d like rewritten, like an article or a landing page. If you’re testing from an API, make sure your code extracts the correct text block.” Notice what that does: it confirms their effort, lowers their stress, and gives a path forward without reprimanding. A well-worded error becomes a reason to stay engaged rather than a signal to check out. Calling the Developers and Product Teams Out: Stop Letting Lazy Errors Ruin Good UX What would happen if every dev team started reviewing their “default” system messages with the seriousness of homepage copywriting? What if you A/B tested your 403s and 422s the same way you test subject lines? If you don’t have someone translating technical errors into customer-facing language, you’re not building software. You’re building user fatigue. Don’t hand off that responsibility to customer support as an afterthought. Respect coding logic, yes. But don’t worship it. Your job isn’t to mirror the system. Your job is to make the user feel like solutions exist—on their terms. If the answer is, “You need to top up your balance,” then the message needs to include exactly how and where to do that, plus a reason that justifies the request. That’s customer retention through clarity and context. Conclusion: Internal Logic Doesn’t Win External Loyalty Users don’t experience your JSON. They experience how you treat their confusion. This particular message is a textbook case in how not to handle a failed input. Cold language, no specific instruction, no empathy, no redirect. It disconnects the user. A smarter company would see the same failure point as a chance to speak like a person, provide a path, and build loyalty through constructive interaction. If you’re using AI, integrate human language review for every user-facing string. If you’re building SaaS, ask how your product communicates when users are stuck, out of credit, overloaded, or misdirected. Think like a negotiator. Make “No” the start of the conversation, not the end of the road. Because great UX isn’t built by perfect input—it’s built by graceful response. #UXWriting #SaaSRetention #ErrorMessageDesign #ClarityInUX #ProductDesign #SpeakHuman More Info — Click Here Featured Image courtesy of Unsplash and Frederic Köberl (VV5w_PAchIk)