Summary: Not every piece of technical feedback contains a narrative. Some messages are blunt, structural, and raw—by design. Treating them like stories misunderstands their function. This article explains why attempting to extract a “main narrative” from a JSON error message like “insufficient account balance” is both a categorical mistake and a distraction from real problem-solving. We'll break down what these messages actually do, clarify why they exist in raw form, and explain what marketers, developers, and non-technical businesspeople should actually focus on instead.
What the Message Is—And What It Isn't
A JSON response is a data structure used by APIs to communicate with clients. It’s machine-readable, not humanized prose. When you come across a response that looks like this:
{
"error": "Insufficient account balance"
}
You’re not meant to draw emotional arcs, user stories, or strategic insight out of it. You're meant to react. Why? Because it's a direct call to action. It tells you what went wrong so you can fix it. Trying to "reframe" this as a story is like turning a fire alarm into a bedtime tale—it defeats the purpose.
Why No Narrative Exists—By Design
Let’s be clear: technical error messages are purpose-built to be short, direct, and context-free. Why? Because they serve multiple systems, environments, and users. Adding narrative breaks compatibility and clarity. Parsing an error like “Insufficient account balance” with story logic is akin to asking a smoke detector to explain why your wiring is faulty. It’s not its role.
Your suspicion is correct: not every digital artifact should become marketing material. Not every string of text needs to be poetic. Trying to extract meaning from this kind of raw error isn't creative—it’s wasteful. So ask yourself: What should we be doing instead?
The Function: Precision Over Emotion
The technical message doesn’t lack story because it’s poorly written. It lacks story because it was never meant to have one. Developers use JSON to communicate structured results between servers and applications. A message like "Insufficient account balance" serves two functions:
- It signals a transaction or operation could not be completed.
- It provides a single, precise reason why.
Adding fluff around this—like what kind of account it was or what the user was trying to do—is not only unnecessary but can slow down automation and create bugs.
When to Interpret, When to Execute
Messages like these remind us that not everything is about interpretation. Sometimes, it’s about execution. If you run into this message in a platform or a user interface, you ask the direct question: Whose account? What’s the balance? Why are we trying to charge more than it can hold?
This error isn’t a piece of content marketing. It’s not even a paragraph. It’s the equivalent of a red light. Would you ask a red light to express its emotions? Or do you just stop the car?
The Real Play: Translating Error to Action
Now, there’s value in interpreting this error for non-technical teams—from support agents to product managers. And that’s where clear communication steps in. But instead of “re-writing the message into a story,” we write context-aware content around it. For example:
BAD: “A user received an error due to a financial transaction roadblock during their workflow journey.”
GOOD: “Your transaction was declined because your wallet balance is below the minimum required. Please add funds and try again.”
Notice how the second version doesn’t mystify the issue—it makes it actionable. It respects the user’s problem without turning it into theater. That’s persuasion rooted in clarity. That’s also how Voss would suggest we communicate during high stakes: stay factual, stay calm, and start with “no” when needed.
When Messages Like This Matter to Marketers
As marketers or business operators, these messages become important when they repeat. One user getting this message? That's a technical hiccup. A thousand users? That's a growth barrier. And that’s when we activate our narrative muscles—not to “rewrite” the message, but to explain how we’re addressing the underlying issue.
This is where Cialdini kicks in. Let users know:
- Reciprocity: “We’re listening and fixing the problem you reported.”
- Commitment: “We promised uptime and transparent billing—we’re holding to that.”
- Social Proof: “Other users noticed the same thing, and here’s how we solved it.”
- Authority: “Our engineering team has already implemented safeguards.”
Nobody wants to feel like they’re the only one stuck. By confirming their suspicions, allaying their fears, and acknowledging the struggle, we create trust—without turning alerts into fiction.
So, What Should You Do Next?
The next time you see someone ask, “Can you rewrite this system message into a story?”, use it as a conversation starter. Mirror it back. Ask: “What do you think the message is trying to tell us?” Then let silence do the work. Most people, when given the chance to pause, will realize they’re looking for a solution, not a script.
The real art is translating clarity into usability, not fantasy. There’s no need to paste a story onto something that's doing its job.
When you respect the difference between signal and explanation, you move faster—and you build systems that people can actually rely on. Keep the story for the pitch deck. Let the errors stay pure and actionable.
#TechnicalClarity #ErrorMessages #MarketingLogic #UXWriting #APIDesign #MessageTranslation #BusinessCommunication
Featured Image courtesy of Unsplash and Markus Spiske (bMvuh0YQQ68)