You know that the video I shared earlier begged to be expanded into a television show. And that for the proper setting, the show itself would market products in a way that is illegal today; yes, the show would be sponsored by Marlboro.
Google Gemini.
So without further ado…
“Product Marketer For Hire,” Sunday at 9pm: “The Stranger”
The introduction to the television show “Product Marketer For Hire.”
(Sharp-eyed Inland Empire residents will notice that this depiction is entirely fictional, since the real “Main Street,” officially known as Euclid Avenue, is much wider and less dusty than the street depicted here. Allow me artistic license.)
As the Ontario townsfolk were gathered on the street in late afternoon, a mysterious stranger rode into town. He was a most unusual man. For one, he was smiling, unlike the other strangers that have come before him. For another, his brown/tan/black official western wear issue (Montgomery Ward catalog, pages 333-334) was rudely interrupted by a blue patch with a “B” on it. There was something else odd about him, but no one spoke of it.
The mysterious stranger rode up to the saloon, dismounted his horse, and walked in.
Scene 2: The Saloon, Ontario
The mysterious stranger slowly walked to the bar and took a seat as the bartender eyed him warily.
(Hey, Inland Empire residents, I got that one right.)
As he sipped his drink, the stranger couldn’t help but notice the older man in a gray jacket staring at him. As everyone in the saloon quietly watched, the older man slowly walked toward the stranger.
“Sir,” said the older man.
“Yes?” asked the stranger.
The older man gestured toward the stranger’s belt. “Those aren’t guns you have in those holsters.”
The stranger paused. “No, they’re not.”
“In fact,” the older man scoffed, “they look like pencils.”
The stranger nodded. “Yes they are.”
The older man’s face betrayed the slightest smirk. “Why” – he paused – “would a man carry PENCILS in his holster?”
As the older man and the others in the saloon broke out into grins, the stranger eyed them all with a serious expression. He paused before responding.
In a loud voice the stranger replied. “Business.”
Everyone looked puzzled at that unexpected response.
After a long pause, the older man turned back to the stranger. “Sir,” he asked, “exactly what kind of BUSINESS are you in?”
If you’re new to my writing, you’ll notice that I use the phrase “hungry people” a lot. You probably want to know why: did I miss breakfast or something? Actually, “hungry people” is my phrase that I use instead of “target audience.” Here’s why.
You are not a target
At its worst, “target” implies something that you shoot, in a William Tell sort of way. If your weapon hits the target, you and your son don’t die. If your weapon misses low, you kill your son. Is that what we marketers do? Hopefully not.
An audience is a group of people that sit in chairs while you perform your song and dance in front of them. (“These are the seven questions your content creator should ask you. Thank you for coming to my BRED talk.”)
Sometimes the audience just sits. Not good.
Sometimes the audience claps. A little better.
If you’re the Beatles or Cheap Trick, the audience screams. But still not enough.
Clapping or screaming is nice, but this doesn’t count as true engagement. I mean, in a way it would be nice if you scream with joy at this post, but it counts for nothing if you don’t actually buy Bredemarket’s marketing and writing services.
You are hungry people
So I resolved not to use the term “target audience.” After considering “needy people,” I finally settled on “hungry people” as a temporary phrase. I figured that unlike “needy people,” “hungry people” are more inspired to act on their needs. They don’t just clap or scream; they are motivated to search for something to eat.
2 1/2 years later, I haven’t thought of anything better.
And if you need my help to address your hungry people, book a free meeting with Bredemarket.
When you write something, read it first to ensure that you don’t burst out laughing after reading it.
If you read SAM.gov for fun, you may have seen Notice ID DCSA_2026_HS002126QE023 for Michigan Fingerprint Channeling. Offers are due on April 23, so if you can satisfy the requirements, get working.
As the acronym-aware probably already know, this was issued by the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA), part of the U.S. Department of Defense (with the secondary title the Department of War).
Why?
“DCSA has a recurring need for a simplified method of filling the anticipated repetitive needs for fingerprint channeling for the purpose of obtaining Criminal History Records Information (CHRI) from the state of Michigan.”
Because it’s a bad thing to make things hard, so DCSA needs a simplified method.
This is explained in the Performance Work Statement that is attached to the Solicitation Form. Another attachment is the Pricing Workbook.
So to make things simple for DCSA, you need to review all three of these documents and provide the approprirate responses.
And don’t forget to review ALL of the incorporated contract clauses, such as this one:
252.232-7006 Wide Area WorkFlow Payment Instructions. (Jan 2023) WIDE AREA WORKFLOW PAYMENT INSTRUCTIONS (JAN 2023) (a) Definitions. As used in this clause- “Department of Defense Activity Address Code (DoDAAC)” is a six position code that uniquely identifies a unit, activity, or organization. “Document type” means the type of payment request or receiving report available for creation in Wide Area WorkFlow (WAWF). “Local processing office (LPO)” is the office responsible for payment certification when payment certification is done external to the entitlement system. “Payment request” and “receiving report” are defined in the clause at 252.232-7003, Electronic Submission of Payment Requests and Receiving Reports. (b) Electronic invoicing. The WAWF system provides the method to electronically process vendor payment requests and receiving reports, as authorized by Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 252.232-7003, Electronic Submission of Payment Requests and Receiving Reports. (c) WAWF access. To access WAWF, the Contractor shall- (1) Have a designated electronic business point of contact in the System for Award Management at https://www.sam.gov; and (2) Be registered to use WAWF at https://wawf.eb.mil/ following the step-by-step procedures for self-registration available at this web site. (d) WAWF training. The Contractor should follow the training instructions of the WAWF Web-Based Training Course and use the Practice Training Site before submitting payment requests through WAWF. Both can be accessed by selecting the “Web Based Training” link on the WAWF home page at https://wawf.eb.mil/ (e) WAWF methods of document submission. Document submissions may be via web entry, Electronic Data Interchange, or File Transfer Protocol. (f) WAWF payment instructions. The Contractor shall use the following information when submitting payment requests and receiving reports in WAWF for this contract or task or delivery order: (1) Document type. The Contractor shall submit payment requests using the following document type(s): (i) For cost-type line items, including labor-hour or time-and-materials, submit a cost voucher. (ii) For fixed price line items- (A) That require shipment of a deliverable, submit the invoice and receiving report specified by the Contracting Officer. Invoice 2-in-1 (B) For services that do not require shipment of a deliverable, submit either the Invoice 2in1, which meets the requirements for the invoice and receiving report, or the applicable invoice and receiving report, as specified by the Contracting Officer. Invoice 2-in-1 (iii) For customary progress payments based on costs incurred, submit a progress payment request. (iv) For performance based payments, submit a performance based payment request. (v) For commercial financing, submit a commercial financing request. (2) ) Fast Pay requests are only permitted when Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.213-1 is included in the contract. (3) Document routing. The Contractor shall use the information in the Routing Data Table below only to fill in applicable fields in WAWF when creating payment requests and receiving reports in the system.
OK, that’s not the whole thing. I stopped copying it at the actual Routing Data Table itself.
This is of course a cost of doing business with any large entity, whether it’s the federal government or a multi-billion dollar firm. This who want money from these large organizations put up with it.
And laugh to themselves about the desire for things “simplified.”
I prefer the term “hungry people” to the term “target audience” because it conveys the idea of those who really really want your product.
The buffet.
And therefore it stands to reason that you want to write content for your hungry people.
For example, if you’re selling automated fingerprint identification systems to cops, your content should probably talk about protecting residents by identifying bad people and keeping them off the street.
“When you spend your time scanning your environment, adapting to those around you, and adjusting your communication style accordingly, you can start to lose yourself, lose sight of your message, and become forgettable.”
Let’s face it. If everyone mirrors their target audience, and they have the same target audience, how can you tell them apart?
I hope that Scott Swann and Ajay Amlani forgive me, but I’m going to use them as examples.
Years ago Ajay, Scott, and I were associated with IDEMIA and/or MorphoTrak, but we have each gone our separate ways.
Ajay Amlani is now at Aware, a U.S.-based biometric company that sells to multiple audiences, including law enforcement.
Scott Swann is now at ROC (formerly Rank One Computing), a U.S.-based biometric company that sells to multiple audiences, including law enforcement.
Aware and ROC could simply mirror the needs and desires of U.S. law enforcement and mirror them back. But if they did that, Aware and ROC would appear identical and interchangeable.
And they’re not.
Aware has been around for several decades and offers everything from components and tools to full-blown automated biometric identification systems. Amlani, a new arrival, has a background that extends back to the FIRST version of CLEAR, along with multiple roles within the federal government and the private sector (including the aforementioned IDEMIA, where we did early work on venue identity verification solutions).
ROC is a newer arrival with a laser focus on several biometric modalities. Swann joined ROC after a long career at the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation and other federal government entities, followed by time in the private sector with MorphoTrak (where we worked on Morpho Video Investigator together, a potential solution for Boston Marathon bombing events) and IDEMIA National Security Solutions.
What is Sterne’s advice for Amlani, Swann, and others who don’t want to simply reflect their prospects? Here is what Sterne does:
“I write about what I’m interested in, and while I do write for all of you (and hope you get some value from what I share), I mostly write for myself, to explore ideas. In other words, I forget about the room when I write….
“When you write for yourself without considering a person or group of people, you end up writing more personally and often more universally.
“The irony is that by writing for yourself, you usually create something that others can connect to more deeply….
“And the more you write from this place, the clearer you get on your voice, priorities, and overarching ideas, the better able you are to create something that resonates.”
Personally, my hope is that my infusion of myself in my writing helps me to stand out and to better communicate what Bredemarket can provide to identity/biometric firms.
Last December I started writing something more comprehensive, and long enough to sell. If I price each copy at $100,000 apiece and sell 25 of them, I can start thinking about retirement.
Despite the (completely realistic) financial incentive, I dropped the project and didn’t pick it back up again until this month. I’m not ready to announce it yet, but the very fact that I’m talking about it may give me the impetus to finish it.
I just uploaded the latest draft to Google Gemini, both to write a 100 word promotional blurb (which I may or may not use or adapt), and to write two book reviews: one positive, one negative.
Again without giving away too much about the book, here are two excerpts from the negative review.
“Author John E. Bredehoft spends significant time on self-promotion and anecdotal stories, such as his hypothetical attempt to access Donald Trump’s medical records, which may distract readers seeking deep technical data.”
Here’s the second:
“While the writing is accessible, those looking for a dense, scholarly analysis of biometric algorithms might find the conversational tone and frequent “investigative lead” reminders a bit repetitive.”
“I think too much knowledge is actually bad in tech: you’re biased.”
Why does this quote affect me so deeply? Because with my 30-plus years of identity/biometric experience, I obviously have too much knowledge of the industry, which is obviously bad. After all, all a biometric company needs is a salesperson, an engineer, an African data labeler, and someone to run the generative AI for everything else. The company doesn’t need someone who knows that Printrak isn’t spelled with a C.
Google Gemini.
In this post I will share three of the “biases” I have developed in my 30-plus years in identity and biometrics, and how to correct these biases by stripping away that 20th century experience and applying novel thinking.
And if that last paragraph made you throw up in your mouth…read to the end of the post.
But first, let’s briefly explore these three biases that I shamefully hold due to my status as a biometric product marketing expert:
Independent algorithmic confirmation is valuable.
Process is valuable.
Artificial intelligence is merely a tool.
Biometric product marketing expert.
Bias 1: Independent Algorithmic Confirmation is Valuable
But how do prospects know that these algorithms work? How accurate are they? How fast are they? How secure are they?
My bias
My brain, embedded with over 30 years of bias, gravitates to the idea that vendors should submit their algorithms for independent testing and confirmation.
From a NIST facial recognition demographic bias text.
This could be an accuracy test such as the ones NIST and DHS administer, or confirmation of presentation attack detection capabilities (as BixeLab, iBeta, and other organizations perform), or confirmation of injection attack detection capabilities.
Novel thinking
But you’re smarter than that and refuse to support the testing-industrial complex. They have their explicit or implicit agendas and want to force the biometric vendors to do well on the tests. For example, the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation’s “Appendix F” fingerprint capture quality standard specifically EXCLUDES contactless solutions, forcing everyone down the same contact path.
But you and your novel thinking reject these unnecessary impediments. You’re not going to constrain yourself by the assertions of others. You are going to assert your own benefits. Develop and administer your own tests. Share with your prospects how wonderful you are without going through an intermediary. That will prove your superiority…right?
Bias 2: Process is Valuable
A biometric company has to perform a variety of tasks. Raise funding. Hire people. Develop, market, propose, sell, and implement products. Throw parties.
How will the company do all these things?
My bias
My brain, encumbered by my experience (including a decade at Motorola), persists in a belief that process is the answer. The process can be as simple as scribblings on a cocktail napkin, but you need some process if you want to cash out in a glorious exit—I mean, deliver superior products to your customers.
Perhaps you need a development processs that defines, among other things, how long a sprint should be. A capture and proposal process (Shipley or simpler) that defines, among other things, who has the authority to approve a $10 million proposal A go-to-market process that defines the deliverables for different tiers, and who is responsible, accountable, consulted, and informed. Or maybe just an onboarding process when starting a new project, dictating the questions you need to ask at the beginning.
Bredemarket’s seven questions. I ask, then I act.
Novel thinking
Sure all that process is fine…if you don’t want to do anything. Do you really want to force your people to wait two weeks for the latest product iteration? Impose a multinational bureauracy on your sales process? Go through an onerous checklist before marketing a product?
Google Gemini.
Just code it.
Just sell it.
Just write it.
Bias 3: Artificial Intelligence is Merely a Tool
The problem with experienced people is that they think that there is nothing new under the sun.
You talk about cloud computing, and they yawn, “Sounds like time sharing.” You talk about quantum computing, and they yawn, “Sounds like the Pentium.” You talk about blockchain, and they yawn, “Sounds like a notary public.”
My bias
As I sip my Pepperidge Farm, I can barely conceal my revulsion at those who think “we use AI” is a world-dominating marketing message. Artificial intelligence is not a way of life. It is a tool. A tool that in and of itself does not merit much of a mention.
Google Gemini.
How many automobile manufacturers proclaim “we use tires” as part of their marketing messaging? Tires are essential to an automobile’s performance, but since everyone has them, they’re not a differentiator and not worthy of mention.
In the same way, everyone has AI…so why talk about its mere presence? Talk about the benefits your implementation provides and how these benefits differentiate you from your competitors.
Novel thinking
Yep, the grandpas that declare “AI is only a tool” are missing the significance entirely. AI is not like a Pentium chip. It is a transformational technology that is already changing the way we create, sell, and market.
Therefore it is critically important to highlight your product’s AI use. AI isn’t a “so what” feature, but an indication of revolutionary transformative technology. You suppress mention of AI at your own peril.
How do I overcome my biases of experience?
OK, so I’ve identified the outmoded thinking that results from too much experience. But how do I overcome it?
I don’t.
Because if you haven’t already detected it, I believe that experience IS valuable, and that all three items above are essential and shouldn’t be jettisoned for the new, novel, and kewl.
Are you a identity/biometric marketing leader who needs to tell your prospects that your algorithms are validated by reputable independent bodies?
Or that you have a process (simple or not) that governs how your customers receive your products?
Or that your AI actually does unique things that your competitors don’t, providing true benefits to your customers?
Bredemarket can help with strategy, analysis, content, and/or proposals for your identity/biometric firm. Talk to me (for free).
By the way, here’s MY process (and my services and pricing).
I’ve discussed the electronic health record (EHR) before, and plan to do so again. But before I dive into EHRs and “the A word,” I want to take a look at WHY we have EHRs.
When dinosaurs roamed the earth
In the old days, even within the lifetimes of some of us, there were no ELECTRONIC health records. There were PAPER health records, stored in large file cabinets. If you were lucky, the health records were typed; heaven help you if they were in a doctor’s famously illegible handwriting.
When a relative’s doctor retired in the 20th century, the relative requested their health records and received a huge pile of paper dating back to who knows when. In that form, it was about as useful as the huge file cabinets in which the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation used to store its millions of fingerprint cards. And unfortunately, paper health records didn’t have the health equivalent of a “Henry system” to find individual records quickly.
The two purposes of an electronic health record
So now that we have electronic health records, why do we have them?
To make life easier for the doctor? Of course not.
To make life easier for the patient? Definitely not.
Electronic health records have evolved to serve two OTHER parties.
First, electronic health records serve the billers
I can’t speak to countries other than my own, but in the United States the health “system” is a mishmash of multiple parties. For example, when I had a colonoscopy a few years ago, the following entities were somehow involved:
The doctor who performed the colonoscopy.
The facility where the doctor performed the colonoscopy.
The anaesthesiologist who assisted with the colonoscopy.
My insurance company.
My former company (via COBRA) who provided me with the insurance.
And probably a half dozen other entities that I missed who somehow got a cut.
So this one procedure created one, or perhaps multiple, electronic health records (perhaps even with pictures) describing every chargeable thing that could be itemized during my time in the facility. All with the proper billing codes (Current Procedural Terminology or CPT codes) and the like, so that every entity can pay what they’re supposed to pay. And if a particular thing wasn’t covered by insurance, then I had to pay it.
Google Gemini.
The most important thing is to get the billing codes right…never mind how hard it is to ENTER all the billing codes.
“By integrating EHR and billing software, healthcare providers can automate various aspects of the billing workflow, resulting in increased efficiency, reduced manual work, and other tangible benefits.”
Second, electronic health records serve the lawyers and regulators
But it’s not only the billers who need information.
To practice medicine in the State of California, you have to perform a colonoscopy in accordance with medically approved procedures. And you have to document that you did so.
If I had died on the operating table during my colonoscopy, then a number of private and government entities would have a keen interest in what was performed during the colonoscopy. And the electronic health record would be one of the main sources of information about what happened, and perhaps what went wrong. And who was responsible. The doctor? The facility? The anaesthesiologist? Someone else?
“The “EHR mandate” refers to the federal requirement for eligible healthcare providers to adopt and use certified EHR technology. Primarily affecting providers who accept Medicare, participation in MIPS and the Promoting Interoperability program requires CEHRT to avoid negative payment adjustments, which effectively necessitates EHR use.”
The result
So now the medical field has these wonderful EHRs that comply with billing requirements and legal requirements.
“For instance, emergency medicine physicians at one health system must click 14 times to order Tylenol—that’s a lot. Yet, those at another health system using the same EHR must click 61 times!”
And that’s just for Tylenol. I’m sure it’s a lot worse for the camera that looked at my colon.
It could have been worse, because many Americans are not healthy.
“[O]ur patients have increasingly complex health needs. More than 40% of American adults have at least two chronic conditions, one-third take at least three medications, and one-fifth suffer from mental illness.”
Put these and other things together, and EHRs have become (as I said before) “a pain in a particular body part.”
Google Gemini.
So that’s the problem with EHRs. Later I’ll look at the solutions, including:
And here’s an example of a “right” prompt, guided by a development expert:
“Optimize this SQL query to reduce execution time on a large PostgreSQL table with millions of records. Indexing suggestions would be helpful.”
Because knowledge of coding IS good when you code stuff. And Silicon Tech Solutions uses this knowledge when it uses generative AI coding tools:
At Silicon Tech Solutions, we actively use Cursor to enhance our development workflow. By integrating AI-powered coding tools, we:
🔹 Reduce development time while maintaining high standards.
🔹 Automate repetitive tasks, allowing developers to focus on core logic.
🔹 Ensure clean and optimized code, reducing technical debt.
However, AI does not replace human expertise—it enhances it. Our team carefully reviews and refines AI-generated code to align with best practices and business requirements.
If you want Silicon Tech Solutions’ expertise at your disposal, request a meeting.
Bredemarket 