Some of you may have seen a similar reel targeted to Bredemarket consulting clients (identity/biometric marketing leaders). Actually there are two Bredemarket reel versions because of a landing page change. The existence of three reels shows my dedication to repurposing.
But none of the three versions is meaningful to cybersecurity firms, or third-party risk management (TPRM) firms, or content management system (CMS) firms, or healthcare firms (the non-identification biometric).
(Author’s preface: I was originally going to schedule this post for the middle of next week. But by the time I wrote it, the end of the post referenced a current event of astronomical proportions. Since said current event may be forgotten by the middle of next week, I am publishing it now.)
You get a message on a platform from someone you don’t know. The message may look something like this:
“John ,
“I hope this message finds you well. I came across your profile and was truly impressed by your background. While I’m not a recruiter, I’m assisting in connecting talented professionals with a startup that is working on a unique initiative.
“Given your experience, I believe you could be a fantastic fit for their senior consultant role. If you’re open to exploring this opportunity, I’d be happy to share more details and introduce you to the team directly. Please let me know if you’re interested!”
Let’s count the red flags in this message, which is one I actually received on May 30 from someone named David Joseph:
The author was truly impressed by my background, but didn’t cite any specifics about my background that impressed them. This exact same message could be sent to a biometric product marketing expert, a nuclear physicist, or a store cashier.
The author is not a recruiter, but a connector who will presumably pass me on to someone else. Why doesn’t the “someone else” contact me directly?
The whole unidentified startup working on a unique initiative story. Yes, some companies operate as stealth firms before revealing their corporate identity. Amway. Prinerica. Countless MLMs with bad reputations. Trust me, these initiatives are not unique.
That senior consultant title. Not junior consultant. Senior consultant. To make that envelope stuffing role even more prestigious.
I got the note and the note is even clearer
But I wasn’t really concerned with the message. I get these messages all the time.
So what concerned me?
The note attached to the message by the platform that hosted the message.
“Don’t know David? Ask David to verify their profile information before responding for added security.”
The platform, if you haven’t already guessed, is LinkedIn, the message a LinkedIn InMail.
Let’s follow the trail.
LinkedIn let “David” use the platform without verifying his identity or verifying that Randstad is truly his employer as his profile states.
LinkedIn sold “David” a bunch of InMail credits so that he could privately share this unique opportunity.
Now LinkedIn wants me to do its dirty work and say, “Hey David, why don’t you verify your profile?”
Now the one thing in LinkedIn’s favor is that LinkedIn—unlike Meta—lets its users verify their profiles for free. Meta charges you for this.
But again, why should I do LinkedIn’s dirty work?
Why doesn’t LinkedIn prevent users from sending InMails unless their profiles are verified?
The answer: LinkedIn makes a ton of money selling InMails to people without verified profiles. And thus makes money off questionable businesspeople and outright scammers.
Instead of locking down the platform and preventing scammers from joining the platform in the first place.
Biometric marketing leaders already know that I’ve talked about reader personas to death. But what about WRITER personas? And what happens when you try to address ALL the reader and writer personas?
Reader personas
While there are drawbacks to using personas, they are useful in both content marketing and proposal work when you want to tailor your words to resonate with particular types of readers (target audiences, or hungry people).
I still love my example from 2021 in which a mythical Request for Proposal (RFP) was issued by my hometown of Ontario, California for an Automated Biometric Identification System (ABIS). The proposal manager had to bear the following target audiences (hungry people) in mind for different parts of the proposal.
The field investigators who run across biometric evidence at the scene of a crime, such as a knife with a fingerprint on it or a video feed showing someone breaking into a liquor store.
The examiners who look at crime scene evidence and use it to identify individuals.
The people who capture biometrics from arrested individuals at livescan stations.
The information technologies (IT) people who are responsible for ensuring that Ontario, California’s biometric data is sent to San Bernardino County, the state of California, perhaps other systems such as the Western Identification Network, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
The purchasing agent who has to make sure that all of Ontario’s purchases comply with purchasing laws and regulations.
The privacy advocate who needs to ensure that the biometric data complies with state and national privacy laws.
The mayor (Paul Leon back in 2021, and still in 2025), who has to deal with angry citizens asking why their catalytic converters are being stolen from their vehicles, and demanding to know what the mayor is doing about it.
Probably a dozen other stakeholders that I haven’t talked about yet, but who are influenced by the city’s purchasing decision.
Writer personas
But who is actually writing the text to address these different types of readers?
Now in this case I’m not talking about archetypes (a topic in itself), but about the roles of the subject matter experts who write or help write the content.
I am currently working on some internal content for a Bredemarket biometric client. I can’t reveal what type of content, but it’s a variant of one of the 22 types of content I’ve previously addressed. A 23rd type, I guess.
But what would happen if someone in a role other than product marketing consultant wrote this content?
An engineer would emphasize different things. Maybe a focus on the APIs.
A finance manager would emphasize different things. Maybe an ROI focus.
A salesperson may focus on different things. Maybe qualification of a prospect. Or eventually conversion.
So the final content is not only shaped by the reader, but by the writer.
You can’t please everyone so you’ve got to please yourself
With all the different reader and writer personas, how should you respond?
Do all the things?
Perhaps you can address everyone in a 500 page proposal, but the internal content Bredemarket is creating is less than 10 pages long.
Which is possibly already too long for MY internal target audience.
So I will NOT create the internal content that addresses the needs of EVERY reader and writer persona.
Which is one truth about (reader) personas in general. If you need to address three personas, it’s more effective to create 3 separate pieces than a single one.
Which is what I’m doing in another project for this same Bredemarket biometric client, this one customer-facing.
And the content targeted to latent examiners won’t mention the needs of Paul Leon.
In which I address the marketing leader reader persona
So now I, the biometric product marketing expert writer persona, will re-address you, the biometric marketing leader reader persona.
You need content, or proposal content.
But maybe you’re not getting it because your existing staff is overwhelmed.
So you’re delaying content creation or proposal responses, or just plain not doing it. And letting opportunities slip through your fingers.
Normally these blog posts are addressed to Bredemarket’s PROSPECTS, the vendors who provide solutions that use biometrics or other technology. Such as identity proofing solutions.
But I’ve targeted this post for another audience, the organizations that BUY biometrics and technology solutions such as identity proofing solutions. Who knows? Perhaps they can use Bredemarket’s content-proposal-analysis services also. Later I will explain why you should use Bredemarket, and how you can use Bredemarket.
So if you are with an organization that SELLS identity proofing solutions, you can stop reading now. You don’t want to know what I am about to tell your prospects…or do you?
When you buy an identity proofing solution, you take on many responsibilities. While your vendor may be able to help, the ultimate responsibility remains with you.
Here are some questions you must answer:
What are your business goals for the project? Do you want to confirm 99.9% of all identities? Do you want to reduce fraudulent charges below $10 million? How will you measure this?
What are your technology goals for the project? What is your desired balance between false positives and false negatives? How will you measure this?
How will the project achieve legal compliance? What privacy requirements apply to your end users—even if they live outside your legal jurisdiction? Are you obtaining the required consents? Can you delete end user data upon request? Are you prepared if an Illinois lawyer sues you? Do you like prison food?
A new Government Accountability Office (GAO) audit found the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has not exercised sufficient oversight of its digital identity-proofing program…
As many of you know, the IRS’ identity proofing vendor is ID.me. The GAO didn’t find any fault with ID.me. And frankly, it couldn’t…because according to the GAO, the IRS’ management of ID.me was found to be deficient.
“IRS was unable to show it had measurable goals and objectives for the program. IRS receives performance data from the vendor but did not show it independently identified outcomes it is seeking. IRS also has not shown documented procedures to routinely evaluate credential service providers’ performance. Without stronger performance reviews, IRS is hindered in its ability to take corrective actions as needed.
“ID.me acknowledges that its identity-proofing process involves the use of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies. However, IRS has not documented these uses in its AI inventory or taken steps to comply with its own AI oversight policies. Doing so would provide greater assurance that taxpayers’ rights are protected and that the technologies are accurate, reliable, effective, and transparent.”
You would think the IRS had a process for this…but apparently it doesn’t.
Dead on arrival (DOA).
But I’m not the IRS!
I’ll grant that you’re not the IRS. But is your identity proofing program management better…or worse?
Do you know what questions to ask?
Let Bredemarket ask you some questions. Perhaps these can help you create relevant external and internal content (I’ve created over 22 types of content), manage an RFP proposal process, or analyze your industry, company, or competitors.
An announcement from Paravision says its biometric age estimation technology has achieved Level 3 certification from the Age Check Certification Scheme (ACCS), the leading independent certification body for age estimation. The results make it one of only six companies globally to receive ACCS’s highest-level designation for compliance.
San Francisco-based Paravision’s age estimation tech posted 100 percent precision in Challenge 25 compliance, with 0 subjects falsely identified as over 25 years old. It also scored a 0 percent Failure to Acquire Rate, meaning that every image submitted for analysis returned a result. Mean Absolute Error (MAE) was 1.37 years, with Standard Deviation of 1.17.
Now this is an impressive achievement, and Paravision is a quality company, and Joey Pritikin is a quality biometric executive, but…well, let me share the other story first, involving a Yoti customer (not Yoti).
Fenix responded that it set a challenge threshold at 23 years of age. Any user estimated to be that age or younger based on their face biometrics is required to use a secondary method for age verification.
Fenix had set OnlyFans challenge age, it turns out, at 20 years old. A correction to 23 years old was carried out on January 16, and then Fenix changed it again three days later, to 21 years old, Ofcom says.
Now Biometric Update was very clear that “Yoti provides the tech, but does not set the threshold.”
Challenge ages and legal ages
But do challenge thresholds have any meaning? I addressed that issue back in May 2024.
Many of the tests used a “Challenge-T” policy, such as “Challenge 25.” In other words, the test doesn’t estimate whether a person IS a particular age, but whether a person is WELL ABOVE a particular age….
So if you have to be 21 to access a good or service, the algorithm doesn’t estimate if you are over 21. Instead, it estimates whether you are over 25. If the algorithm thinks you’re over 25, you’re good to go. If it thinks you’re 24, pull out your ID card.
And if you want to be more accurate, raise the challenge age from 25 to 28.
NIST admits that this procedure results in a “tradeoff between protecting young people and inconveniencing older subjects” (where “older” is someone who is above the legal age but below the challenge age).
You may be asking why the algorithms have to set a challenge age above the lawful age, thus inconveniencing people above the lawful age but below the challenge age.
The reason is simple.
Age estimation is not all that accurate.
I mean, it’s accurate enough if I (a person well above the age of 21 years) must indicate whether I’m old enough to drink, but it’s not sufficiently accurate for a drinker on their 21st birthday (in the U.S.), or a 13 year old getting their first social media account (where lawful).
Not an official document.
If you have a government issued ID, age verification based upon that ID is a much better (albeit less convenient) solution.
Bredemarket 