How does your biometric product captivate your prospect?
Let Bredemarket, the biometric product marketing expert, help your firm speak to your prospects. Schedule a free meeting.
Identity/biometrics/technology marketing and writing services
How does your biometric product captivate your prospect?
Let Bredemarket, the biometric product marketing expert, help your firm speak to your prospects. Schedule a free meeting.
Sure! But…
…they will need a lot of guidance and editing from you.
Get your product content right the first time with Bredemarket, the biometric product marketing expert.
Click below.
Remember tongue identification, which I discussed in 2023? Supposedly you can identify people based upon the shape and texture of their tongues. Unfortunately for the proponents, I don’t know that this has ever been tested with a subject size greater than 20 participants.
But that doesn’t stop people from talking about tongue identification as established fact.
A blog post (I won’t link to it) makes statements such as this:
The human tongue…has unique features that are different for each person.
Again without a shred of evidence.
Of course, the same blog post also praises bite mark analysis as an established identification method. Ignoring what scientists say:
“A likely next candidate for elimination is bitemark identification….An important National Academies review found little scientific support for the field. The Texas Forensic Science Commission recently recommended a moratorium on the admission of bitemark expert testimony….This article describes the (legal) basis for the rise of bitemark identification and the (scientific) basis for its impending fall. The article explains the general logic of forensic identification, the claims of bitemark identification, and reviews relevant empirical research on bitemark identification—highlighting both the lack of research and the lack of support provided by what research does exist. The rise and possible fall of bitemark identification evidence has broader implications—highlighting the weak scientific culture of forensic science and the law’s difficulty in evaluating and responding to unreliable and unscientific evidence.”
So don’t get all excited about tongue identification just yet.
Someone’s gotta do it.
Do your prospects see you in a negative light?
And if so, how do you fix it?
This post looks at the following:
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.
We already tailor our prompts.
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.

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:
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
Let me note that these are NOT hallucinations. Every criticism is valid.
So I asked the uncomfortable question. Now what?
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.
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.

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.
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.

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.
And your company will overcome the negativity.
Why don’t you set up a first, free meeting to discuss your options? Set up the meeting below.
Again, I ask questions and propose services.
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.
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 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.
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.
If I can help your firm with analysis, content, or even proposals in this area, talk to me.
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.


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.

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.
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.
Take the first step to biometric dominance. https://bredemarket.com/mark/
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.
My professional experience spans DNA, face, friction ridge, iris, and voice.
But I’ve looked at many other modalities.
See the full list here.