Tag Archives: biometric product marketing expert

Why and How My Company Bredemarket Sucks, and Asking Uncomfortable Questions About Your Own Company

Do your prospects see you in a negative light?

And if so, how do you fix it?

This post looks at the following:

How generative AI answers you

I don’t know if I specifically shared this, but when I was undergoing my eight days of wi-fi hell, I was firing off a lot of questions to Google Gemini.

A LOT of questions.

Troubleshooting, fact-checking, you name it. Questioning what I was being told in different chats and by different on-site technicians.

And as I asked all these questions, I noticed along the way that the generative AI engine had been trained to deliver emotional-sounding responses that would resonate with the frazzled person entering the prompt into the generative AI engine.

This stands to reason. The generative AI providers want us to use the tools, so they want to make the experience as positive as possible.

For example, at one point I entered this prompt into Google Gemini:

“When a fiber Internet support person scheduled a second technician for a service call, the support person said “There are times where signal issues take more than one service visit to get to the root of the issue.” What exactly are “signal issues,” and why does the line need to be “balanced”?”

Note how Google Gemini BEGAN its response to my prompt:

“It can be incredibly frustrating when your internet isn’t working and the fix feels like it’s being kicked down the road. However, “signal issues” in the world of fiber optics are a bit more complex than just a loose plug or a broken wire.”

For those who remember the Clinton era, Google felt my pain.

Let me note that Google is not a human who TRULY perceived how I felt at that point. (Your AI girlfriend doesn’t love you either.) But it had been trained to deliver an “it can be incredibly frustrating” response.

On a certain level, Google was telling me what it thought I wanted to hear.

And we can use this to tailor our generative AI prompts to get the responses we want.

How you ask generative AI

We already tailor our prompts.

  • Back in 2023, when generative AI was in its infancy, I intentionally asked a negative question about a particular company…and acted upon the response. (I will explain how later.)
  • Whenever a product marketer asks a generative AI engine to prepare a SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) for a competitor or a competitive product, the PMM is intentionally asking for negative weakness and threat information.
  • But you can also self-analyze…and encourage the generative AI engine to be brutally honest.

A pointed question

Let me illustrate this with the following prompt:

“Why does the marketing and writing company Bredemarket suck so badly?”

Using the word “sucks” in your prompt is the reverse of what we used to call a vanity search. Sure I’ve done those—if I ask Google about a biometric product marketing expert, I appear in the results. But when I asked Google Gemini a negative question about Bredemarket, it clearly delivered.

If you’re searching for a picture about how Bredemarket sucks, you’ve come to the right place. Google Gemini. Picture by Bredemarket.

The response started as follows.

“That is a pretty pointed question!”

Intentionally so. The introduction continued:

“To be fair to the “company” (which is actually a solo consultancy run by a guy named John Bredehoft), whether Bredemarket “sucks” depends entirely on what you’re looking for.”

It then got into the nitty gritty about how I suck. A few excerpts:

Answer 1: a one-man shop

“If you were expecting a full-service marketing firm with account managers and a design department, the reality of a one-man shop based in Ontario, California, might feel underwhelming.”

Answer 2: not for non-tech lifestyle brands

“If you are a general business or a lifestyle brand, his style—which is very technical, process-oriented, and “old school” corporate—might feel dry, rigid, or out of touch with modern, punchy social media marketing.”

Answer 3: he ain’t a corporate drone

“John has a very distinct, conversational, and sometimes quirky style (often referencing his own mistakes or niche industry drama). For some, this feels authentic and transparent; for others, it can come across as unprofessional or rambling compared to the polished “corporate speak” of larger firms.”

Answer 4: see answer 1

“If a project gets complex or requires a fast turnaround that one person can’t handle, the “process” (which he mentions frequently on his site) might feel more like a bottleneck than a benefit.”

My responses to Gemini

Let me note that these are NOT hallucinations. Every criticism is valid.

  • Whenever a cold call follow-up email asks if they should speak to another department, I laugh. To myself. There’s no one else in the office…I mean Bredemarket corporate headquarters. It’s only 25 square feet, after all.
  • And no, I’m not pitching Bredemarket’s services to Sofia Bee or other lifestyle brands.
  • Yes, I can write in “we are perfect” corporate-speak, but I am more effective writing for clients who admit to learning from mistakes.
  • Finally, I can deliver on projects that require a draft in 3 (or 7) days. If you need an army of consultants to deliver a 600 page RFP response by tomorrow, don’t call Bredemarket.

So I asked the uncomfortable question. Now what?

How you act after you ask generative AI

As you know, after I ask, I act.

Remember when I asked generative AI a pointed question in 2023? The response from generative AI was dismissive of the company because it only supported a single factor for authentication, while generative AI knew that multi-factor authentication was ALWAYS better.

  • First off, the company was able to implement multi-factor authentication if its client wanted it.
  • Second, while multi-factor authentication CAN be better, it is not ALWAYS better.

So how did I respond to generative AI’s assertion? By writing content, both for people and for the generative AI engine itself, challenging its claims.

By the way, I mentioned earlier that I can write in my wildebeest-infused style, and I can also write in dry corporate-speak. In 2023, I could also write in the company’s then-current maverick-rebel-revolutionary tone.

By Alberto Korda – Museo Che Guevara, Havana Cuba, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=6816940.

Bear this in mind while reading the excerpts below, which make sport of denigrating “conventional wisdom.”

Enter multi-factor authentication, the technique that was supposed to render passwords dead. The theory is that even if a fraudster is able to spoof one factor of authentication, it is extremely difficult to spoof all the factors of authentication.  

This is the conventional wisdom. Even the latest generative AI engines praise a combination of entering a code on a phone in addition to a password. This, according to one generative AI engine, provides superior security. 

Nevertheless, conventional wisdom and generative AI can both be wrong. 

  • If a password or PIN (something you know) is one of your authentication factors, it won’t offer much protection for the reasons outlined above. Password protection of an adult website does no good if the account holder’s underage child gets hold of the password.  
  • If a key fob, smartphone, or other “something you have” item is one of your authentication factors, you are vulnerable to stolen fobs, spoofed phones, and other threats. Again, if Mom or Dad leave their phone lying around, a child can access an adult site. 

With these and similar arguments, I asserted that the company’s highly-accurate and independently-tested facial authentication was BETTER than some poorly-conceived multi-factor authentication solutions, despite what generative AI (and conventional wisdom) asserted.

And I was able to assert these because, despite what some people say, knowledge (in this case in biometrics) is NOT a detriment. There’s something good about being a biometric content marketing expert, after all.

But what about your company?

Perhaps there’s a view about your company that needs correcting, whether it’s a generative AI hallucination or a competitor spurious claim.

And how do many companies react to negative views about them? They do nothing. They don’t give the claim the dignity of a response. So the record stands, uncorrectred.

But the smart companies change the story. For example, they tell the Eskimos that an icemaker IS better than just grabbing something from outside.

OK, maybe it’s NOT a lost cause. Imagen 4.

Or they tell prospects how great their single factor authentication is.

Or they admit that their content probably wouldn’t help a makeup artist, but it definitely would help a technology company.

Bredemarket can help you correct the narrative.

  • I’ll ask questions.
  • Then I’ll propose services.

And your company will overcome the negativity.

Set up a free meeting with Bredemarket

Why don’t you set up a first, free meeting to discuss your options? Set up the meeting below.

What I do

Again, I ask questions and propose services.

I ask questions.
I propose services.

CITeR and Combating Facial Recognition Demographic Bias

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) isn’t the only entity that is seeking to combat facial recognition demographic bias. The Center for Identification Technology Research (CITeR) is doing its part.

The Problem

NIST and other entities have documented facial recognition accuracy differences related to skin tone. This is separate from the topic of facial analysis: this relates to facial recognition, or the identification of an individual. (As a note, “Gender Shades” had NOTHING to do with facial recognition.)

It’s fair to summarize that the accuracy of an algorithm depends upon the data used to train the algorithm. For example, if an algorithm is trained entirely on Japanese people, you would expect that it would be very accurate in identifying Japanese, but less accurate in identifying Native Americans or Kenyans.

Many of the most-used facial recognition algorithms are authored by North American/European or Asian companies, and while the good ones seek to employ a broad data set for algorithm training, NIST and other results document clear demographic differences in accuracy.

The Research

The Center for Identification Technology Research (CITeR) is a consortium of universities, government agencies, and private entities. The lead entity in CITeR, Clarkson University, has initiated research on “improving equity in face recognition systems.” Clarkson is using the following methods:

  • Establish a continuous skin color metric that retains accuracy across different image acquisition environments.
  • Develop a statistical approach to measure equity, ensuring FR results fall within a precise margin of error.
  • Employ new FR systems in combination with or instead of existing measures to minimize bias of results.

In this work, Clarkson is cooperating with other entities, such as the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the FIDO Alliance.

The final goal is to make facial recognition usable for everyone.

Your problem

Is your identity company and its product marketers also working to reduce demographic bias? How are you telling your story? Bredemarket (the biometric product marketing expert) can help with strategic and tactical solutions for your marketing and writing needs.

Bredemarket services, process, and pricing.

If I can help your firm with analysis, content, or even proposals in this area, talk to me.

Why Biometric Marketing Experience Beats Biometric Marketing Immaturity

I know that the experts say that “too much knowledge is actually bad in tech.” But based upon what I just saw from an (unnamed) identity verification company, I assert that too little knowledge is much worse.

As a biometric product marketing expert and biometric product marketing writer, I pay a lot of attention to how identity verification companies and other biometric and identity companies market themselves. Many companies know how to speak to their prospects…and many don’t.

Take a particular company, which I will not name. Here is the “marketing” from this company.

  • We have funding!
Google Gemini.
  • We offer lower pricing than selected competitors!
  • We claim high facial recognition accuracy but don’t publish our NIST FRTE results! (While the company claims to author its technology, the company name does not appear in either the NIST FRTE 1:1 or NIST FRTE 1:N results.)
  • We claim liveness detection (presentation attack detection) but don’t publish any confirmation letters! (Again, I could not find the company name on the confirmation letter lists from BixeLab or iBeta.)
Google Gemini.

So what is the difference between this company and the other 100+ identity verification companies…many of which explicitly state their benefits, trumpet their NIST FRTE performance, and trumpet their third-party liveness detection confirmation letters?

If you claim great accuracy and great liveness detection but can’t support it via independent third-party verification, your claim is “so what?” worthless. Prove your claims.

Now I’m sure I could help this company. Even if they have none of the certifications or confirmations I mentioned, I could at least get the company to focus on meaningful differentiation and meaningful benefits. But there’s no need to even craft a Bredemarket pitch to the company, since the only marketer on staff is an intern who is indifferent to strategy.

Google Gemini.

Because while many companies assert that all they need is a salesperson, an engineer, an African data labeler, and someone to run the generative AI for everything else…there are dozens of competitors doing the exact same thing.

But some aren’t. Some identity/biometric companies are paying attention to their long-term viability, and are creating content, proposals, and analyses that support that viability.

Take a look at your company’s marketing. Does it speak to prospects? Does it prove that you will meet your customers’ needs? Or does it sound like every other company that’s saying “We use AI. Trust us“?

And if YOUR company needs experienced help in conveying customer-focused benefits to your prospects…contact Bredemarket. I’ve delivered meaningful biometric materials to two dozen companies over the years. And yes, I have experience. Let me use it for your advantage.

Expertise is Everywhere

The Italian baseball players, fueled by espresso, defeated the U.S.

But who can help you defeat your competitors?

The strategic biometric product marketing expert, and…

…the tactical biometric product marketing writer.

Oh, wait…they’re the same person: John E. Bredehoft of Bredemarket.

Expertise is everywhere.

Take the first step to biometric dominance. https://bredemarket.com/mark/

Biometric Product Marketing Expert? Strategic. Biometric Product Marketing Writer? Tactical.

It’s tough when you operate in both the strategic and tactical spheres.

Especially when you realize that “biometric product marketing expert” may sound lofty and strategic.

So to clear up the confusion, I am also a biometric product marketing writer.

Because I write.

A lot.

Articles, blog posts, case studies, data sheets, proposals, social media, web pages, white papers, and more.

If your biometric firm needs help getting your writing out, let’s talk.

Stop losing prospects! Use Bredemarket content for tech marketers

My Biometric Video One-Two Punch

Different moods, but both videos emphasize (not empathize) Bredemarket’s biometric product marketing expertise.

So what?

If your firm wants to speak to biometric prospects and customers, you need someone who speaks the language.

As a customer whose name I won’t mention recently said to me, “You have to know what FRTE [VENDOR NAME REDACTED] [NUMBER REDACTED] means.” (An algorithm submission to the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology Facial Recognition Technology Evaluation (FRTE), either the 1:1 test or the 1:N test.)

But even more important is why a vendor’s algorithmic submission matters…and why it may not matter. Ah, the nuances…

I’ve written about these nuances for almost two dozen firms. Perhaps I can write for your firm. Click below and book a free meeting with Bredemarket.

Stop losing prospects! Use Bredemarket content for tech marketers

Delivering Bad News: How Motorola Overcame the FpVTE 2003 Results Announcement

I just realized that I have never told the FULL story of FpVTE 2003 in the Bredemarket blog. I’ve only told the problem part, but not the solution part. Bad on me.

The problem part

I told parts of this in a 2023 post entitled “The Big 3, or 4, or 5? Through the Years.” One of the pivotal parts of the story was when the “big 4” became the “big 3.”

It happened like this:

These days the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is well known for its continuous biometric testing, but one of its first tests was conducted in 2003. At the time, there were four well-recognized fingerprint vendors:

  • Cogent Systems.
  • Motorola, which had acquired Printrak.
  • NEC.
  • Sagem Morpho, which had acquired Morpho.

There were a bunch of other fingerprint vendors, but they were much smaller, including the independent companies Bioscrypt and Identix.

I was a product manager at Motorola at the time, managing the server portion of the company’s automated fingerprint identification system (AFIS), Omnitrak. This featured a modernization of the architecture that was a vast improvement over the client-server architecture in Series 2000. The older product was still in use at the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), but Motorola was in the process of installing Omnitrak in Slovenia and upgrading existing systems in Oklahoma and Switzerland.

Yes, I’ve worked in biometrics for a while.

Yes, I am the biometric product marketing expert.

This is the environment in which NIST released its Fingerprint Vendor Technology Evaluation of 2003 (FpVTE 2003).

“FpVTE 2003 consists of multiple tests performed with combinations of fingers (e.g., single fingers, two index fingers, four to ten fingers) and different types and qualities of operational fingerprints (e.g., flat livescan images from visa applicants, multi-finger slap livescan images from present-day booking or background check systems, or rolled and flat inked fingerprints from legacy criminal databases).”

So the companies listed above, among others, submitted their algorithms to FpVTE 2003. After the testing, NIST issued a summary report that included this sentence.

“Of the systems tested, NEC, SAGEM, and Cogent produced the most accurate results.”

You can see how this affected Motorola…and me. We were suddenly second-tier, via independent confirmation.

I’m a loser, baby. Google Gemini.

We first had to go to the RCMP and admit that we weren’t as accurate as other systems. This came at a particularly bad time, since the RCMP was engaged in a massive system upgrade of its own. While Motorola’s FpVTE performance was not the ultimate deciding factor, we lost the massive RCMP system to Cogent.

But Motorola did something else at the same time.

The solution part

The accuracy of an automated fingerprint identification system falls in the laps of the algorithm developers, whether the vendor develops its own algorithms or buys a third-party algorithm from another AFIS vendor.

Motorola developed its own algorithm…and one of the R&D leaders was Guy Cardwell.

Motorola held a User’s Conference after the FpVTE results announcement, and Cardwell spoke to our customers.

  • It wasn’t a flashy presentation with smoke and mirrors.
  • It wasn’t an accusatory presentation calling NIST a bunch of crooks.
  • It was basically Guy, on stage, saying that we didn’t do well.
  • And that we would do better.

Now of course that in itself means nothing unless we actually DID better. The R&D team went to work and improved the algorithm, and continued with other advances such as supporting complete 1000 pixel per inch systems as Sweden demanded.

But from a product marketing perspective, Motorola’s initial messaging to its customers was critically important.

Because if Motorola didn’t publicly address its FpVTE 2003 performance, then the only people talking about it would be Cogent, NEC, and Sagem Morpho.

And you don’t want to let your competitors deliver your message and steal your prospects.

Stop losing prospects! Use Bredemarket content for tech marketers