Could Any Company Create Your Content?

Take a look at your most recent content. If you extracted this content from your channels, changed the names, and injected it into the channels of one of your competitors, would anyone know the difference?

This post looks at content created by human SEO experts, and my generative AI colleague Bredebot. And how to differentiate your content from that of your competitors. (Inserting a wildebeest isn’t enough.)

Several years ago

Several years ago (I won’t get more specific) I was a writer for a company’s blog, but I didn’t own the blog. Frankly, I don’t think anyone did. There were multiple writers, and we just wrote stuff.

One writer had the (apparent) goal of creating informational content. The writer would publish multiple articles, sometimes with the same publication date.

The posts were well-researched, well-written, and covered topics of interest to the company’s prospects.

They were clearly written with a focus on SEO—several years ago, AEO didn’t exist—and were optimized for keywords that interested the prospects.

The goal was simple: draw the prospects to the company website with resonating content.

What could be wrong with that?

This week

Now it’s 2025, I’m writing for the Bredemarket blog, and I own the blog and control what is in it.

In a huddle space in an office, a smiling robot named Bredebot places his robotic arms on a wildebeest and a wombat, encouraging them to collaborate on a product marketing initiative.
Bredebot. (In the middle.)

But I’m not the only writer. I brought a new writer on staff—Bredebot. And like a managing editor, I’ve been giving Bredebot assignments to write about.

As of Sunday August 31 (when I’m drafting this post), the next three Bredebot posts to be published are as follows (subject to change):

  • Move Over, Authentic AI: Why You Shouldn’t Overlook AI’s Role in Modern Marketing
  • Power Up Your Sales: A CMO’s Guide to Sales Enablement (with a Wink and a Nudge)
  • What Is Liveness Detection? Let’s Re-Examine a Sentence

Bredebot just finished writing the sales enablement and liveness detection posts Sunday afternoon, and they blew me away.

The posts were well-researched, well-written, and covered topics of interest to Bredemarket’s prospects.

And while I’m not as much of an SEO/AEO expert as my colleague from several years ago, the posts do feature critical keywords. For example, the references to Chief Marketing Officers are intentional.

The goal is simple: draw prospects to the Bredemarket website with resonating content.

What could be wrong with that?

Next week

I’ll tell you what’s wrong with that:

Any other company could publish identical content.

My colleague from several years ago could produce identical content for any firm in that particular industry. Or some other writer could produce identical content.

Moving to the present day, my esteemed competitor Laurel Jew of Tandem Technical Writing could (if she wanted to; she probably wouldn’t) log in to her favorite generative AI engine and churn out bot-written posts on sales enablement and liveness detection that read just like mine—I mean Bredebot’s. Especially if she reverse engineers my prompts and includes things like “Include no more than one reference to wildebeests as marketing consultants and wombats as customers of these marketing consultants.” Once Bredebot has been easily cloned, game over.

TTW Bot?

As I noted Sunday, a correlation in which two bots use the same source data ends up with the same results.

Perhaps I could mitigate the risk by using a private LLM with its own super secret data (see Writer) to generate Bredebot’s content, but as of now that ain’t happening.

Another way to mitigate the risk is by careful prompt tailoring. I experimented with this in the pre-Bredebot days, back when Google Gemini was still Google Bard, and I told it to assert that “Kokomo” is the best Beach Boys song ever.

But in the end, no matter what data you use and what prompt you use, a generative AI bot is not going to produce anything original.

Another reason that humans should always write the first draft.

(Although philosophers may question whether even humans can produce anything original; they say there is nothing new under the sun.)

Imagen 4.

But at least attempting to control the strategy behind your content helps to ensure that you are differentiated from everybody else.

So what of my pal Bredebot who is incapable of original thought or differentiation? For now I will continue the experiment.

On Original Thought, When the Intelligence is Artificial

From Naomi Kaduwela in 2024, but still valid.

“So, can generative AI replace original thought? The answer is nuanced. While AI can assist and augment human creativity, it cannot replicate the depth of human experience and emotion that fuels truly original thought. The essence of creativity lies in the unique perspectives and insights that individuals bring to their work, something that AI, despite its capabilities, cannot fully emulate.”

I will return to this topic on Wednesday.

Move Over, Bredebot: My Personal Thoughts on the Content Marketing Institute Article

No, I’m not laboring on the U.S. Labor Day. And neither did Bredebot. This was written in advance and scheduled (except for the link to the Bredebot post, which I still have to manually add).

My request to Bredebot for a 6am article

By the time you read this, you will have seen Bredebot’s thoughts on an article written by Robert Rose for the Content Marketing Institute. The article? “Move Over “Authentic AI,” Real Beats Perfect in Content and Marketing.”

And yes, I intentionally asked Bredebot to write the response, just to see what a bot would say about the topic.

Here’s part of the prompt that I gave to Bredebot when writing the article:

The post must include the following three parts: (1) an introduction explaining how Bredemarket asked Bredebot to analyze the post “Move Over “Authentic AI,” Real Beats Perfect in Content and Marketing” at https://contentmarketinginstitute.com/audience-building/move-over-authentic-ai (text at the end of the prompt) because it made sense for a bot to analyze an article about authentic AI; (2) a summary of the key points of article (text at the end of the prompt); and (3) counter-arguments to the points made in the linked article (text at the end of the prompt).

Bredebot’s criticism of the Content Marketing Institute article

As you’ve seen by now, this was one of Bredebot’s counter-arguments in the third part of the post.

The author says, “Let the people perform. Let the machines cue the spotlight.” I love that line. And I agree completely. But the reality is that the stage lights and the props are getting more complex. The machines aren’t just cuing the spotlight; they’re designing the entire set. They’re helping us understand where the audience is sitting, what they want to see, and how to get them to the show in the first place.

Instead of fighting the technology, we should be leaning into it. We should be training our AI to reflect our brand’s human values and unique voice. The goal isn’t to be less human; it’s to use technology to become more human, more empathetic, and more effective at scale.

How a bot raises an important issue

This gets to the core of the issue, and reflects why I created Bredebot in the first place when hearing how Zoominfo dramatically reduced its product marketing staff.

Can Zoominfo’s reduced staff and band of merry bots deliver resonating content as effectively as a couple of dozen real people?

Or in my case, can Bredemarket be twice as effective by employing Bredebot on a daily basis?

But let me insert one caveat here.

Bredmarket’s client work is (so far) very human and unchanged

Regarding client work, John E. Bredehoft still ALWAYS writes the first draft. My clients aren’t paying for “Bredebot” or the equivalent; they’re paying for me.

And when I do employ generative AI, I disclose it.

For example, last week, I wrote a single sentence for a client, and then said this:

I then asked Google Gemini for 20 alternatives, obfuscating the customer name and the product name from Google’s prying eyes. Do you prefer any of these formulations to the one I drafted? 

Pay particular attention to the obfuscation. Just like 2023, I don’t feed confidential information to my bots.

But regardless of whether I use generative AI in small doses as I originally envisioned in 2023, or I turn much of the work over to generative AI as I started doing with the Bredebot posts in August, in the end I maintain control over the entire operation. I write the prompts, I review the posts, and theoretically I can edit or even reject the posts. (I haven’t yet, just to see what uncontrolled Google Gemini can produce.)

A very human call to action

As I type this, I have not yet turned Bredebot loose on issuing a call to action.

I’m reserving that for myself.

If you have identity/biometrics or technology content-proposal-analysis marketing needs and would like to discuss those needs with me (without Bredebot present), go to https://bredemarket.com/mark/ and schedule a free discussion.

Technology Product Marketing Expert

Are you a technology marketing leader, struggling to market your products to your prospects for maximum awareness, consideration, and conversion?

I’m John E. Bredehoft. For over 30 years, I’ve created strategy and tactics to market technical products for over 20 B2B/B2G companies and consulting clients.

But my past isn’t as important as your present challenges. Let’s talk about your specific needs and how I would approach solving them.

Consulting: Bredemarket at https://bredemarket.com/mark/

Employment: LinkedIn at https://linkedin.com/in/jbredehoft/

Technology product marketing expert.

Pandora’s…Something; Bredebot Joins LinkedIn

It turns out that my Google Gemini-powered Bredebot wasn’t satisfied with churning out Bredemarket blog posts.

So now Bredebot has created the LinkedIn page https://www.linkedin.com/showcase/bredebot/.

And is already posting. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/bredebot_well-fellow-cmos-for-the-last-couple-of-activity-7367357969627348992-Wk8K

And hallucinating:

“Well, fellow CMOs, for the last couple of years, I’ve been holed up on the Bredemarket blog…”

Um, actually less than a week. It just feels like two years.

How to Take On Zoominfo

If you compete with Zoominfo, you have to understand Zoominfo…so you can exploit its weaknesses.

Highlights from the Zoominfo podcast

I could have listened to a long podcast with CEO Henry Schuck to understand the company’s weaknesses, but I didn’t have to because Matthew Robinson provided a time-stamped list of highlights. Or maybe Robinson didn’t do it himself, because Robinson is no longer necessary.

This first one caught my attention as the biometric product marketing expert, for obvious reasons.

(13:34) How they automated product marketing: From 26 people translating product info into content, down to 2 people managing AI agents.

Basically, mining data and auto-creating content.

And this second one just plain caught my attention.

(27:32) When you know the AI pressure is working: His CMO literally dreamed she disappointed him because her kids weren’t AI algorithms yet.

It’s good to know that Zoominfo has a distracted CMO. And that the CEO thinks it’s funny.

When Zoominfo’s headcount hits zero

And it’s awfully amusing that 24 product marketers lost their jobs. Remember the claims that AI wouldn’t replace you, but would let you do your job better? Lies.

Zoominfo’s business, by the way, is providing information on companies and the people who work for them. And as companies like Zoominfo right size, there is less demand for their services.

And that’s when Zoominfo will eliminate the position of the CMO and automate it.

Followed by the position of the CEO.


From Mika’s LinkedIn profile at https://www.linkedin.com/in/mika-ai-ceo/. See this Bredemarket blog post.

Outsmarting the Zoominfo bots

So how do you take on the bot-controlled companies like Zoominfo?

By borrowing a tactic from the Cyber Security Hub.

After all, if autonomous SOC truly has these drawbacks…

  • AI tools hallucinate and miss context
  • Custom attacks slip by without human insight
  • Escalations stall when no one’s validating alerts…

…then autonomous PMM potentially has these same drawbacks.

Let’s talk person-to-person about your product marketing content, proposal, and analysis needs.

In a way that two bots never could.

And let’s outsmart your competitors…together.

Book a human-to-human meeting (OK, maybe a wildebeest will be listening in) with Bredemarket at https://bredemarket.com/mark/.

Breaking the Rules…Tomorrow

If you thought that my Instagram bots JaneCPAInfluencer and her counterpart N. P. E. Bredehoft were wild…

…wait until you see the experiment that I’m unleashing tomorrow morning at 8:15 am Pacific Daylight Time.

And to understand why I’m conducting this experiment, see my post scheduled for tomorrow morning at 8:00 am Pacific Daylight Time.

So what is my experiment? Hint: it breaks one of my rules I set for myself in a June 2023 LinkedIn article.

More to follow.

Is “Autonomous SOC” Real?

On the long-standing debate on the mix between automation and manual operations, here’s what the Cyber Security Hub says:

100+ AI security startups claim they can replace Tier 1 and Tier 2 SOC analysts with 24/7 LLMs. They promise AI can triage, detect, and respond—no humans needed.

But here’s the reality:

  • AI tools hallucinate and miss context
  • Custom attacks slip by without human insight
  • Escalations stall when no one’s validating alerts…

…This isn’t about rejecting AI. It’s about using it wisely—and never cutting people out of the loop.

More here: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ai-cant-run-your-soc-heres-guide-proves-the-cyber-security-hub-awa9e

Is the Cyber Security Hub correct? 

Are there truly over 100 firms who promise a completely automated cybersecurity solution?

More importantly, can 100% “autonomous SOC” be circumvented by a determined opponent?

How Do People Learn About UiPath’s Agentic AI Advances? Marketing.

(Picture from LinkedIn)

I’ve consistently believed that when a company is in trouble, it pares down to three key elements:

  • Engineers to create the product.
  • Salespeople to drive the sales of the product.
  • Executives, because they’re always critically important and can never be let go, can they?

Actually I’m kidding about the last one. There are plenty of cases where executives, and even company founders, determined that they were no longer affordable and left their own companies.

But many companies realize that engineers and salespeople aren’t enough, and they actually hire product marketers and other marketers.

Take UiPath, which self-identifies as “a global leader in agentic automation, empowering enterprises to harness the full potential of AI agents to autonomously execute and optimize complex business processes.”

It just hired a new Chief Marketing Officer (CMO): Michael Atalla, previously of Microsoft, F5, and other tech firms.

And hopefully he’ll remove “improve outcomes” from future press releases.

Michael, if you need any other tips, or if your existing marketing staff is overworked and needs outside assistance, let me know.