Identity/biometrics/technology marketing and writing services
There is an advantage to working with a micro-business such as Bredemarket.
You know who you’re dealing with. You won’t deal with me one week and my assistant the next. (Bredebot goes nowhere near paying clients.)
The downside is that I still haven’t gotten around to editing this video for my new landing page.
So ignore the end of the video and go to https://bredemarket.com/watch-book/ instead.
(8/29/2026: Also see “Move Along Now.”)
Technically this isn’t a Bredemarket video—I developed it for a post on my personal LinkedIn profile—but my consultancy Bredemarket operates with the same understanding.
As I assert in this video, managing identity / biometric / technology complexity requires a product marketer who speaks both technology and business languages.
Yes, the audio track is generated via Google Lyria. And frankly, about half the text here is from Google Gemini. But the 30+ years of experience (whoops, wasn’t supposed to say that!) behind everything is 100% human.
If you are a marketing leader seeking to invigorate your team with the biometric product marketing expert (look it up!), visit my LinkedIn profile.
No deep business truth here. I just despise overly long pointless meetings.
“Boil the Ocean” by Google Lyria. Public Domain.
If you are asking “how do I use [COOL AI TOOL]”…
…you’re asking the wrong question.
Ask how you will solve a particular business problem.
Maybe you will use AI.
Maybe you won’t.
Maybe you will use Bredemarket.
Since I am not really a business-to-consumer guy, I tend to think of hungry people (target audiences) who number in the hundreds or thousands rather than millions. For example, if you want to sell your identity/biometric solutions to banks with total assets of over US$100 billion, there are only about 100 of them.
Marketing products in this environment requires a completely different mindset. Rather than hiring a Kardashian or Jenner as your influencer or spokesperson, you’d hire a Buffett. (If you could. You probably can’t, unless he owns the company.)
Therefore you need to concentrate on the players who make buying decisions, from the CxO level down to the users. That is the way to get your product into the enterprise.
But if enterprise penetration is your goal, you’re doomed to failure.
For example, enterprises usually don’t buy automated biometric identification systems. Government agencies do.
Believe me, I know. Many identity/biometric firms sell to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and their orders have been disrupted on and off since last October.
One acronym that I love to use is B2G—business-to-government. But I’ve learned the hard way that many people have never heard this acronym before. (Scan the job descriptions and spot the ones for marketing to government agencies that require “B2B” experience.)
So Bredemarket doesn’t seek clients that only sell to enterprises. I seek those that sell to organizations, both private and public.
If your identity/biometric or technology company markets products to organizations and you need strategic and tactical assistance, talk go Bredemarket.
If you’ve read a few hundred job descriptions, one phrase that you’ll often see is “cross-functional collaboration.” The theory is that the employee (for example, a senior product marketing manager) will seamlessly work with marketing, product, R&D, customer success, sales, finance, legal, and everyone else, all working together for the good of the company.
But the world usually doesn’t work like that. YOUR department is great. The other departments are the bozos.
There’s actually a benefit to this when you look at government agencies. If you believe that “the government that governs least” is preferable to Big Brother, then the fact that multiple agencies DON’T gang up against you is a good thing. You don’t want to be chased by the FBI and the CIA and the BBC and B.B. King and Doris Day. And Matt Busby.
But there are times when government agencies work together, usually when facing a common threat. Sometimes this is good…and sometimes it isn’t. Let’s look at two examples and see where they fall in the spectrum.
Normally bureaucrats are loyal to their agency, to the detriment of other agencies. This is especially true when the agencies are de facto competitors.
In theory, and certainly in the 1970s, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) have completely separate spheres of operation. But on the highest level they perform the same function: catch bad people. And each agency certainly wants to take the credit when a bad person is caught. Conversely, if one of the agencies has a bad person, the other one usually works to expose it.
Usually.
A few of you are old enough to remember a third-rate burglary in Washington, DC in 1972. The burglary took place at a political party office in some hotel or another. We now know with the benefit of hindsight that the FBI-CIA rivalry worked. Bob Woodward learned a few days after the break-in that two of the alleged burglars were connected to E. Howard Hunt, a former CIA operative. Who told Woodward?
“Woodward, we now know, had been tipped off by Mark Felt, the deputy director of the FBI. The Bureau had itself become involved in the investigation of a mere burglary because once the police found wiretapping equipment, the investigation fell under its remit.”
This is how it should work. Although the mere fact that Hunt knew Bernard Barker and Eugenio Martinez was not a crime, the FBI was certainly bound to investigate the matter.
Until it wasn’t.
“Richard Nixon and senior White House personnel including Chief-of-Staff Bob Haldeman and domestic policy tsar John Ehrlichman devised a strategy to block the investigation. This began to unfold as early as June 23, a mere three days after the break-in. That day, Haldeman proposed to Nixon to “have [Vernon] Walters [deputy director of the CIA] call Pat Gray [director of the FBI] and just say ‘stay the h*ll out of this’ on grounds of ‘national interest.’”
This recorded conversation would become very important two years later, but back in 1972 very few people knew about it. And very few people knew that Gray “destroyed secret documents removed from Howard Hunt’s safe.”
Think about it. If Richard Nixon hadn’t recorded his own conversations, we may have never learned that the CIA partially neutralized an FBI investigation.
But other instances of cross-functional collaboration come to light in other ways.
The FBI-CIA episode of 1972 was an aberration. Normally agencies don’t cooperate, even when massive amounts of effort are performed to make them work together.
One prime example was the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2002-2003. Because it was believed that 9/11 happened because relevant agencies were scattered all over the government, Congress and the President performed a massive reorganization. This affected the Departments of Agriculture, Energy, Health and Human Services, Justice, Transportation, and Treasury.
For our discussion:
The theory, of course, is that once all these agencies were under the DHS umbrella, they would magically work together to stop the evil terrorists. However, each of the component agencies had vastly different missions. Here is the mission of the TSA:
“Protect the nation’s transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce.”
Well, “freedom of movement” is not the primary part of ICE’s mission:
“Protect America through criminal investigations and enforcing immigration laws to preserve national security and public safety.”
While these missions are not mutually exclusive, the difference in emphasis is apparent. And the agencies competed.
Some of you may remember air marshals. After 9/11, some airline flight passengers were actually air marshals, but the passengers (and any terrorists) didn’t know which flights had air marshals or who they were.
The Federal Air Marshal Service (FAMS) was part of the Transportation Security Administration.
“Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge announced [in September 2003] that the federal air marshals program will move from the Transportation Security Administration to the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).”
The idea was to concentrate all enforcement operations in one agency, to protect FAMS from uncertain TSA funding, and to allow ICE agents to be cross-trained as air marshals. But this didn’t happen, so two years later FAMS moved from ICE back to TSA.
And both agencies went on their merry little ways.
Let’s look at a recent Biometric Update article.
“When Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Acting Director Ha Nguyen McNeill was pressed [by the House Committee on Homeland Security] on reports that ICE is using domestic flight passenger information to support deportation operations, she did not deny cooperation. Instead, she defended it as legitimate intra-departmental coordination and framed it as part of DHS’s overall mission set.
“In response to lawmakers’ questions, McNeill said TSA assistance to ICE is ‘absolutely within our authorities’ when it involves sharing passenger information for immigration enforcement operations.”
McNeill effectively said that TSA doesn’t dump its data on ICE, but responds to individual ICE inquiries.
Civil libertarians argue that this is mission creep, not the original intent.
“Airport travel…becomes a choke point for detentions – no longer just transportation, but a compliance checkpoint for civil enforcement, re-engineering mobility into an enforcement tool.”
But I took special interest in McNeill’s contradictory statements that TSA is enforcing REAL ID while simultaneously allowing ConfirmID for those who don’t have a REAL ID.
In the future, it will be interesting to see how inter-agency barriers break down…and why.
I previously wrote about how marketers can navigate the “time of uncertainty,” including three suggested tips:
In short, agile to the extreme.
But writers aren’t the only ones faced with uncertainty.
If these anonymous survey results are to be believed, despair is setting in among…oil company executives.
Yes, oil company executives. I keep on hearing ads for some TV show that imply that the oil industry is invincible. Um…ask John Connally.
Back to the survey, conducted by the ultra libtards at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.
“Uncertainty around everything has sharply risen during the past quarter,” another executive said. “Planning for new development is extremely difficult right now due to the uncertainty around steel-based products.”
But what of the politicians in high places who are pro-oil (well, except when they promote a certain woke electric car) and are doing everything they can to encourage oil production?
“The threat of $50 oil prices by the administration has caused our firm to reduce its 2025 and 2026 capital expenditures,” an executive said. “‘Drill, baby, drill’ does not work with $50 per barrel oil. Rigs will get dropped, employment in the oil industry will decrease, and U.S. oil production will decline as it did during COVID-19.”
I wonder if one of my old employers is still conducting its three year planning exercises.
Business-to-business (B2B) writing isn’t as complex as some people say it is. It may be hard, but it’s not complex.
Neil Patel (or, more accurately, his Ubersuggest service) um, suggested that I say something about B2B writing.
And then he (or it) suggested that I use generative artificial intelligence (AI) to write the piece.
I had a feeling the result was going to suck, but I clicked the “Write For Me” button anyway.
Um, thanks but no thanks. When the first sentence doesn’t even bother to define the acronym “B2B,” you know the content isn’t useful to explain the topic “what is B2B writing.”
And this, my friends, is why I never let generative AI write the first draft of a piece.
Before I explain what B2B writing is, maybe I’d better explain what “B2B” is. And two related acronyms.
I included the “B2G” acronym because most of my years in identity and biometrics were devoted to local, state, federal, and international government sales. My B2G experience is much deeper than my B2B experience, and way deeper than my B2C expertise.
I’m sure that Ubersuggest could spin out a whole bunch of long-winded paragraphs that explain the critical differences between the three marketing efforts above. But let’s keep it simple and limit ourselves to two truths and no lies.
TRUTH ONE: When you market B2B or B2G products or services, you have FEWER customers than when you market B2C products or services.
That’s pretty much it in terms of differences. I’ll give you an example.
The sheer scale of B2C marketing vs. B2B/B2G marketing is tremendous and affects how the company markets its products and services.
But one thing is similar among all three types of writing.
TRUTH TWO: B2B writing, B2G writing, and B2C writing are all addressed to PEOPLE.
Well, until we program the bots to read stuff for us.
This is something we often forget. We think that we are addressing a blog post or a proposal to an impersonal “company.” Um, who works in companies? People.
(Again, until we program the bots.)
Whether you’re marketing a business blog post writing service, a government software system, or a pseudo rib sandwich, you’re pitching it to a person. A person with problems and needs that you can potentially solve.
So solve their needs.
Don’t make it complex.
Let’s return to the original question. Sorry, I got off on a bit of a tangent. (But at least I didn’t trail off into musings about “the dynamic and competitive world.”)
When I write something for a business:
Again, this is hard, but not complex.
It’s possible to make this MUCH MORE complex and create a 96 step plan to author B2B content.
But why?
So now I’ve answered the question “What is B2B writing?”
Can Bredemarket write for your business? If so, contact me.
