Summary: This post deals with a very specific kind of misunderstanding in the digital environment: the belief that technical error messages, especially those generated in structured formats like JSON, contain a storyline or require rewriting as a narrative. They don’t. And misunderstandings like these waste time, distort communication, and dilute clarity. Let’s break down the logic, the context, and the human impulse behind the urge to read meaning into cold technical data.
When Data Isn’t a Story—And That’s Okay
Storytelling is powerful. It’s how we understand the world. But sometimes, we try to fit everything into the frame of a story—especially where none exists. A perfect example? The sentence:
“Unfortunately, the provided text does not contain a story that can be extracted and rewritten. The text appears to be a JSON error response indicating an insufficient account balance. There is no main story or narrative present in this data. The text simply conveys an error message and does not require any rewriting or extraction of a story.”
This isn’t a line from a novel, a case study from business school, or even content for marketing. It’s a system message. It’s machine-to-human communication. It’s not meant to evoke emotion—it’s alerting you to a condition. Cold. Precise. Necessary.
What a JSON Error Message Does (And Doesn’t Do)
Let’s be clear. A JSON error code like this is not designed to entertain, inform, or guide a broader philosophical exploration. It’s a signal. Like an engine warning light or a bank login failure notice. It’s not supposed to tell a story. It performs a function. The function is clarity:
- Flag the issue: Your account balance isn’t enough.
- Point of origin: The system, not a person, is responding.
- Suggested action: Check your account. Add funds. Try again.
The Real Problem Isn’t the Error—It’s the Interpretation
Often, when there’s confusion, it’s not about the message—it’s about projection. We take standard protocols like error responses and expect them to give us more than they have. Why does that happen? Because humans hate ambiguity, and we especially hate being denied access. An “insufficient balance” error feels personal—it stirs up anxiety, frustration, and even shame. And when feelings get involved, the rational default gets bypassed.
Have you ever seen a team tie themselves in knots over interpreting a server error instead of just reading the developer docs? That’s this problem. People looking for a story when we need a fix.
Why Some Want a Story Where There’s None
Wanting a story here tells us something—not about the JSON data, but about human behavior. Our drive to make sense of things, to put skin on the bones of every message we receive, is rooted in good instincts. But they don’t always serve us well in digital systems. In fact, that drive can hold business decisions hostage.
Marketers reading too much into sparse data. Executives waiting to see a pattern in random server errors. Developers being told to add spin to objective system outcomes. These are symptoms of the same problem—confusing an alert with a narrative.
So What Do You Do When You Get a Non-Story?
Answer it like a negotiator. Ask:
- “What’s this message actually saying?”
- “What’s the immediate need or action proposed?”
- “Is there emotion here because of content—or because I’m reacting personally?”
And more importantly, don’t skip past the utility just because it doesn’t read like a marketing asset. Technical clarity is a feature—not a bug.
When a system says “your balance is too low,” don’t ask what tale it’s trying to tell. Ask: “What do I need to do now?”
Marketing Implication: Stop Forcing Narrative Onto Technical Messages
This matters especially for marketers trying to work with IT, innovation, or operations teams. If you’re trying to shove human drama into an automated response, you’re not respecting the format—and you might be solving the wrong problem. Marketing succeeds when it aligns with reality, not when it fills in blanks that shouldn’t be filled.
Instead of easing your discomfort with filler messaging, lean into the discomfort. Get precise. Speak plainly. You’ll earn more trust from technical stakeholders. You’ll also avoid confusing your user base.
Reality Check: Clarity Beats Creativity in System Communication
What do users want when something fails? Not poetry. Not metaphor. They want clarity. Can I fix this myself? Am I locked out? Should I wait or call support? Who do I contact? When you turn basic error responses into storytelling playgrounds, you’re doing the user a disservice and muddying the core message.
Holding the Line Between Function and Flair
It’s tempting to polish every nugget of output and “put it in our brand voice.” But technical messages shouldn’t be sparkly. They should be short, direct, and designed for the next step. Not interpretation. Not emotional resonance. Just clear progress.
If you’re in marketing, product, or UX—and you’re writing system messages—ask yourself one question:
“If I were the user, would I know what to do after reading this?”
If the answer is no, the tone or storytelling approach doesn’t matter. You’ve failed.
Conclusion: Don’t Force Narrative Onto Function
There’s a time and place for story. This isn’t it. Treat technical data like a wrench, not a fable. If a JSON response says the balance is too low, it’s not crying for dramaturgy. It’s a trigger. The only question that matters is: “Now what?”
#ClarityMatters #TechnicalWriting #MarketingDiscipline #JSONErrors #UXRealityCheck #NoDramaUX #DigitalCommunication
Featured Image courtesy of Unsplash and Markus Spiske (bMvuh0YQQ68)
