A biometric expert (I’m not the only one) was challenged to find a picture of a particular cartoon character in a particular setting, but was worried about copyright infringement.
I suggested that the expert substitute some other character in place of the copyrighted cartoon character.
I can’t share the particular example above, but the picture in this post illustrates the point. You subconsciously know which characters are being referenced, but the substitute characters (pre-copyright days) take care of the copyright issue.
As long as the rest of the image doesn’t infringe on copyright either. MLB may visit me, even if “the fruit company” doesn’t.
Matthew Prince of Cloudflare recently described an alleged imbalance affecting content creators, and what Cloudflare and others are doing about it. It turns out that today’s AI web crawlers behave differently than yesterday’s search web crawlers.
The revolution
Prince began his article by describing a win-win deal facilitated by a content-gathering company known as Google. Google’s web crawlers would acquire site content, but the content creators would win also.
“The deal that Google made with content creators was simple: let us copy your content for search, and we’ll send you traffic. You, as a content creator, could then derive value from that traffic in one of three ways: running ads against it, selling subscriptions for it, or just getting the pleasure of knowing that someone was consuming your stuff.”
Sounds like a win-win to me.
The new power generation
What Prince didn’t say is that not everyone was thrilled with the arrangement.
Let’s start with Spain, and the relationship between Spanish online publications and Google Noticias (Google News).
Imagen 4.
The publishers thought they were getting the raw end of the deal, since Google would present summaries of the publishers’ content on Google pages, but no one would go to the publishers’ pages. Why bother? Google had shared the important stuff.
“Reacting to a law that requires news sites in Spain to charge for their content, Google shut down its Google News service in the country….The tech company and other news aggregators would face steep fines if they publish headlines and abstracts without paying.”
At the time, I cast this as a battle between the nations and plucky individuals fighting for freedom…ignoring the fact that Google (cited twice below) was more powerful than some nations.
As an aside, it’s worth noting that several nations subsequently banded together to implement GDPR, shifting more power to the governments.
Oh, and the Spanish law was changed to conform with European Union copyright law. As a result, Google Noticias came back online in Spain in 2022, eight years later.
3rdeyegirl (bear with me here)
Back to Cloudflare’s Matthew Prince, who talked about a brand new voracious web crawler that didn’t feel like a win-win. Rather than presenting links to outside content, or summaries of content accompanied by prominent links, AI tools (including Google’s own) would simply present the summaries, burying the links.
“Google itself has changed. While ten years ago they presented a list of links and said that success was getting you off their site as quickly as possible, today they’ve added an answer box and more recently AI Overviews which answer users’ questions without them having to leave Google.com. With the answer box they reported that 75 percent of queries were answered without users leaving Google. With the more recent launch of AI Overviews it’s even higher.”
Imagen 4.
So the new AI-sponsored web crawlers and their implementation effectively serve to keep readers in the walled gardens of OpenAI, Google, Microsoft, and the rest.
Walled gardens again? It’s just human nature. Having to click on a link to go somewhere else causes friction. This very post links to Cloudflare’s article, my old Empoprise-BI blog, and a multitude of other sources. And I bet you won’t click on ANY of those links to view the other content. I know. WordPress tells me.
As Prince himself puts it:
“…increasingly we aren’t consuming originals, we’re consuming derivatives.”
So what’s Cloudflare doing about the AI web crawlers that are sucking information away with little or no return to the content creators?
Blocking them by default.
“That changes today, July 1, what we’re calling Content Independence Day. Cloudflare, along with a majority of the world’s leading publishers and AI companies, is changing the default to block AI crawlers unless they pay creators for their content. That content is the fuel that powers AI engines, and so it’s only fair that content creators are compensated directly for it.”
Cloudflare envisions a marketplace in which AI companies will pay creators for high quality content.
However, today’s content creators may face the same challenges that Spanish periodicals faced from 2014 to 2022. They may prevent their content from being ripped off…but no one will ever know because the people who go to ChatGPT will never learn about them.
Because in the end, most people are happy with derived content.
But your hungry people want to hear from you.
If you are a tech marketer who needs help creating content, talk to Bredemarket.
When you’re…um…surfing the web, do you say to yourself, “I really hope I encounter something written by ChatGPT”?
Maybe you want to learn about a particular product and you’re hoping to find a page that begins with the words “in the ever-changing landscape of handheld gaming advances…”
Or you’re dying to read text that could be written by anybody…or by nobody.
Generative AI text is, after all, the “professional” tone.
When the CEO asks the product marketers to write just like the competitors, it’s possible that you could write exactly like the competitors by using the exact same generative AI tool (ChatGPT, because everybody uses it) and the exact same prompts to get the exact same content. This brands you as a respected member of the industry.
Because I’m going to have it rewritten with a professional tone.
Because while your readers claim that they want to read authentic text rather than AI-generated text, they don’t know what’s good for them.
So I’m going to rewrite this the way it’s supposed to be done…with one exception. I’m going to use Google Gemini rather than ChatGPT. I know I’ll get in trouble for doing it this way.
But the text below is what readers WANT to read…right?
Navigating AI in Product Marketing: Authenticity vs. Efficiency
The increasing prevalence of generative AI in content creation presents a critical challenge for product marketers: balancing the pursuit of efficiency with the imperative of authenticity. While AI tools offer significant advantages in content generation, their widespread adoption raises questions about brand differentiation and genuine engagement.
A common misconception is that a “professional tone” inherently aligns with the output of generative AI. However, relying solely on AI, particularly popular platforms like ChatGPT, can lead to generic content that lacks unique brand voice and fails to resonate deeply with target audiences. When product marketing teams are tasked with mirroring competitor messaging, using the same AI tools and prompts as competitors can result in indistinguishable content, ultimately eroding a brand’s distinct identity within the industry.
This scenario underscores a fundamental tension: while consumers often express a preference for authentic, human-generated content, the demand for high-volume, rapid content creation pushes marketers towards AI solutions. The challenge lies in strategically integrating AI without compromising the unique elements that define a brand’s communication.
Product marketers are encouraged to consider the following:
Strategic AI Implementation: Instead of viewing AI as a complete content solution, leverage it for specific tasks that enhance efficiency without sacrificing originality. This could include initial research, data synthesis, or generating diverse content formats that human marketers can then refine and personalize.
Prioritizing Distinctive Brand Voice: Invest in developing a clear and consistent brand voice that transcends generic AI output. This involves defining unique terminology, storytelling approaches, and a tone that reflects the brand’s values and personality.
Authenticity and Connection: While AI can streamline content production, fostering genuine connections with audiences still requires human insight and empathy. Focus on creating content that addresses real customer needs, shares authentic brand stories, and encourages meaningful interaction.
The objective for product marketers is not to abandon AI, but to wield it judiciously. By understanding its capabilities and limitations, and by consciously prioritizing authenticity and unique brand expression, marketers can leverage AI as a powerful tool to enhance their efforts without sacrificing the crucial human element that drives true engagement.
Do you believe the future of product marketing lies in a complete embrace of AI, or a more nuanced integration that prioritizes human oversight and authentic brand voice?
People are people, and why should it be that non-person entities (NPEs) are treated the same? The girl is NOT the robot.
Imagen 4.
Non-static
In a June 30 LinkedIn post, Eric Olden of Strata caused me to realize that my approach to NPEs is too uniform and needs to be more nuanced.
“Agentic identity isn’t just a new type of NHI. AI agents might functionally fall under the “non-human identity” umbrella—but that label doesn’t really cut it since we’re not talking about static service accounts or API keys.”
In a table published in the original post, Olden semantically defines NHIs as the persistent entities with unchanging privileges. Agentic identities, in Olden’s cosmos, are ephemeral.
But Olden identifies one additional distinction that has nothing to do with lifespan.
“AI agents are digital actors that can reason and make decisions across systems.”
Olden notes that the characteristics of agentic AI offer both power and risk.
“Modern architectures — cloud-native, ephemeral workloads, APIs, containers, robotic processes — don’t fit neatly into the account model. They’re fast, dynamic, and short-lived. They need access right now, based on who or what they are, where they run, and what they do.
“And here’s the shift: We don’t need to create an account for each of them. We just need to recognize the entity, validate it, and project a governed identity that can be used for access decisions.”
I generated this picture in Imagen 4 after reading an AI art prompt suggestion from Danie Wylie. (I have mentioned her before in the Bredemarket blog…twice.)
The AI exercise raises a question.
What if you are in the middle of an identity verification or authentication process, and only THEN discover that a fraudster is impersonating you at that very moment?
Remember last month when I created the Meta AI character N. P. E. Bredemarket? “He” identifies as “wisdom in technology, at your service.” Although I need to train him more, he is fairly good at illuminating technology topics.
N. P. E. Bredemarket.
But he doesn’t make me money.
To make money, I need an influencer to promote Bredemarket.
But not a macro-influencer like a Kardashian or Jenner.
“She” is still in anti-hallucination training; at one point she said that I was the past president of the International Biometric Association (whatever that is). But she’s getting better.
Will she drum up business for Bredemarket? Probably not, since my Instagram influence pales in comparison to my Facebook and LinkedIn influence. But I’m curious to try it.
It was Sunday afternoon, and I was reading my LinkedIn feed. (Yes, I know; the first step is admitting you have a problem.)
Except that I was seeing stuff that was weeks old. Posts about “upcoming” trade shows that already took place. News about the “upcoming” Prism Project deepfake report that was released long ago.
I don’t know why LinkedIn’s algorithm thinks I need to read ancient history. What’s next…reports that Enron may be a fraud?
The chronological feed
So I decided to bypass the algorithm and access the tried and true chronological feed. You know, the way things used to work before we supposedly got “smart.”
(As an aside, I remember when FriendFeed would AUTOMATICALLY update the chronological feed when new content was posted. The way that the pitchforks were raised, you would have thought the world ended. As it turned out, the world wouldn’t end until August 10, 2009…or April 10, 2015. But I digress.)
Anyway, I went to the feed to look for the switch to swap to chronological…but could find no such switch.
So I checked Google Gemini, and discovered that the “Most Recent” feed switch was buried in the Settings. For mobile LinkedIn users, it was in the “Account preferences” section, in the “Feed preferences.”
Except that it wasn’t.
Whack a Mole
“Feed preferences” only governed display or non-display of political content. The option below “Feed preferences,” “Preferred feed view,” was the one I wanted.
Preferred feed view.
Color me conspiratorial, but I think everyone in the Really Big Bunch—Microsoft (LinkedIn), Meta (Facebook), and the others—likes to play “Whack a Mole” with the location of the chronological feed setting so that we give up and stick with the algorithmic feed of The Things We Are Supposed To See.
So the instructions here, written on June 22, 2025, may be invalid on June 22, 2026. Or July 22, 2025. Or June 23, 2025.
But for this moment I have the chronological feed set on LinkedIn, and since it takes effort to change it back, I don’t know when I will.
Update
When I returned to LinkedIn to share a LinkedIn version of this post, my preferred feed view had been reset to “most relevant.”
Willbrand, a product expert who has worked for multiple identity companies, started his story by saying that he uses Perplexity AI.
I realize that many of you just fell off your chairs in shock. Because the first rule of Generative AI is that you ALWAYS talk about ChatGPT. Well, there are other generative AI tools. Deal with it.
Anyway, Willbrand was prompting Perplexity about shoes, and awaiting the responses.
Which were unreadable.
“Every result forced inserted an Apple map with shoe stores onto the response page. It was 2/3rds the screen. Now as a text based app primarily this is super annoying because you can’t see … The …. Text.”
Monetization gone bad
Should we be surprised? No.
Now I don’t fault software vendors for trying to make money. I have no sympathy for those who complain that Threads should never ever have ads because Facebook makes a bajillion dollars. If Threads isn’t making money for Meta, then Meta will kill it.
Where I DO have a problem is when a software vendor’s monetization efforts infringe with my ability to use the software.
This applies to some smartphone games in which you play the game for 30 seconds before you’re locked in to watching 60 seconds of ads.
And this also applies to what I fear will be the future format for generative AI responses.
“The best way to overcome a marketing challenge is to do something, rather than surrendering to paralysis. But before you begin…what would you do for a Klondike bar?”
Sadly I don’t make any money off this.
Repurposing
And yes, this blog post was repurposed from something I wrote on the Bredemarket Technology Firm Services LinkedIn page. Now I just need an idea for a video…
I spend a lot of time on LinkedIn and therefore endure the regular assault from the so-called LinkedIn “experts.”
You know them.
The people who get all bent out of shape over this character—because it’s certain proof that you use “ChatGPT” (because there is no other generative AI tool) because no human ever uses em dashes.
And then in the next breath the LinkedIn “experts” slam people who don’t use “ChatGPT” to increase productivity. For example, jobseekers should use “ChatGPT” to “beat the ATS,” automatically fine-tune their resumes for every individual application, and apply to thousands of positions.
Oh, but the LinkedIn “experts” say you shouldn’t spray and pray. Tap into the hidden job market via our members-only gated website.
But that’s not the worst thing they say.
Formulate Safe Generic Pablum
When they’re not commanding you to avoid the em dash, the LinkedIn “experts” remind us that LinkedIn is a professional network. And that our communications must be professional.
No cat pictures.
No “life sucks” posts.
Nothing that would cause anyone any offense.
The ideal personal communication is this: “I am thrilled and excited to announce my CJIS certification!”
The ideal business communication is this:
Yes, the “experts” wish that businesses said nothing at all. But if they do say something, a statement like this optimizes outcomes: “WidgetCorp is dedicated to bettering the technology ecosystem.”
Such a statement is especially effective if all your competitors are saying the same thing. This unity of messaging positions you as an industry leader.
Which enables you to…argh, I can’t do this any more. I am hating myself more and more with each word I type. Can I throw up now? This is emotionally painful.
Derek Hughes just sent me an email that describes this generic pablum. It read, in part:
“Everything reads like it was written by a robot on decaf.
“Same recycled tips. Same recycled tone. Somehow, it’s all… grey.”
Obliterate Safe Generic Pablum
If your company wants conversions—and I assume that you do—avoid the generic pablum and say something.
This will bring your hungry people (target audience) to you.
And for the prospects that despise humanness and glory in generic pablum…if their focus is elsewhere, your focus won’t impede. Let them roam in the distance.
Bredemarket 