I prefer the term “hungry people” to the term “target audience” because it conveys the idea of those who really really want your product.
The buffet.
And therefore it stands to reason that you want to write content for your hungry people.
For example, if you’re selling automated fingerprint identification systems to cops, your content should probably talk about protecting residents by identifying bad people and keeping them off the street.
“When you spend your time scanning your environment, adapting to those around you, and adjusting your communication style accordingly, you can start to lose yourself, lose sight of your message, and become forgettable.”
Let’s face it. If everyone mirrors their target audience, and they have the same target audience, how can you tell them apart?
I hope that Scott Swann and Ajay Amlani forgive me, but I’m going to use them as examples.
Years ago Ajay, Scott, and I were associated with IDEMIA and/or MorphoTrak, but we have each gone our separate ways.
Ajay Amlani is now at Aware, a U.S.-based biometric company that sells to multiple audiences, including law enforcement.
Scott Swann is now at ROC (formerly Rank One Computing), a U.S.-based biometric company that sells to multiple audiences, including law enforcement.
Aware and ROC could simply mirror the needs and desires of U.S. law enforcement and mirror them back. But if they did that, Aware and ROC would appear identical and interchangeable.
And they’re not.
Aware has been around for several decades and offers everything from components and tools to full-blown automated biometric identification systems. Amlani, a new arrival, has a background that extends back to the FIRST version of CLEAR, along with multiple roles within the federal government and the private sector (including the aforementioned IDEMIA, where we did early work on venue identity verification solutions).
ROC is a newer arrival with a laser focus on several biometric modalities. Swann joined ROC after a long career at the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation and other federal government entities, followed by time in the private sector with MorphoTrak (where we worked on Morpho Video Investigator together, a potential solution for Boston Marathon bombing events) and IDEMIA National Security Solutions.
What is Sterne’s advice for Amlani, Swann, and others who don’t want to simply reflect their prospects? Here is what Sterne does:
“I write about what I’m interested in, and while I do write for all of you (and hope you get some value from what I share), I mostly write for myself, to explore ideas. In other words, I forget about the room when I write….
“When you write for yourself without considering a person or group of people, you end up writing more personally and often more universally.
“The irony is that by writing for yourself, you usually create something that others can connect to more deeply….
“And the more you write from this place, the clearer you get on your voice, priorities, and overarching ideas, the better able you are to create something that resonates.”
Personally, my hope is that my infusion of myself in my writing helps me to stand out and to better communicate what Bredemarket can provide to identity/biometric firms.
“I think too much knowledge is actually bad in tech: you’re biased.”
Why does this quote affect me so deeply? Because with my 30-plus years of identity/biometric experience, I obviously have too much knowledge of the industry, which is obviously bad. After all, all a biometric company needs is a salesperson, an engineer, an African data labeler, and someone to run the generative AI for everything else. The company doesn’t need someone who knows that Printrak isn’t spelled with a C.
Google Gemini.
In this post I will share three of the “biases” I have developed in my 30-plus years in identity and biometrics, and how to correct these biases by stripping away that 20th century experience and applying novel thinking.
And if that last paragraph made you throw up in your mouth…read to the end of the post.
But first, let’s briefly explore these three biases that I shamefully hold due to my status as a biometric product marketing expert:
Independent algorithmic confirmation is valuable.
Process is valuable.
Artificial intelligence is merely a tool.
Biometric product marketing expert.
Bias 1: Independent Algorithmic Confirmation is Valuable
But how do prospects know that these algorithms work? How accurate are they? How fast are they? How secure are they?
My bias
My brain, embedded with over 30 years of bias, gravitates to the idea that vendors should submit their algorithms for independent testing and confirmation.
From a NIST facial recognition demographic bias text.
This could be an accuracy test such as the ones NIST and DHS administer, or confirmation of presentation attack detection capabilities (as BixeLab, iBeta, and other organizations perform), or confirmation of injection attack detection capabilities.
Novel thinking
But you’re smarter than that and refuse to support the testing-industrial complex. They have their explicit or implicit agendas and want to force the biometric vendors to do well on the tests. For example, the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation’s “Appendix F” fingerprint capture quality standard specifically EXCLUDES contactless solutions, forcing everyone down the same contact path.
But you and your novel thinking reject these unnecessary impediments. You’re not going to constrain yourself by the assertions of others. You are going to assert your own benefits. Develop and administer your own tests. Share with your prospects how wonderful you are without going through an intermediary. That will prove your superiority…right?
Bias 2: Process is Valuable
A biometric company has to perform a variety of tasks. Raise funding. Hire people. Develop, market, propose, sell, and implement products. Throw parties.
How will the company do all these things?
My bias
My brain, encumbered by my experience (including a decade at Motorola), persists in a belief that process is the answer. The process can be as simple as scribblings on a cocktail napkin, but you need some process if you want to cash out in a glorious exit—I mean, deliver superior products to your customers.
Perhaps you need a development processs that defines, among other things, how long a sprint should be. A capture and proposal process (Shipley or simpler) that defines, among other things, who has the authority to approve a $10 million proposal A go-to-market process that defines the deliverables for different tiers, and who is responsible, accountable, consulted, and informed. Or maybe just an onboarding process when starting a new project, dictating the questions you need to ask at the beginning.
Bredemarket’s seven questions. I ask, then I act.
Novel thinking
Sure all that process is fine…if you don’t want to do anything. Do you really want to force your people to wait two weeks for the latest product iteration? Impose a multinational bureauracy on your sales process? Go through an onerous checklist before marketing a product?
Google Gemini.
Just code it.
Just sell it.
Just write it.
Bias 3: Artificial Intelligence is Merely a Tool
The problem with experienced people is that they think that there is nothing new under the sun.
You talk about cloud computing, and they yawn, “Sounds like time sharing.” You talk about quantum computing, and they yawn, “Sounds like the Pentium.” You talk about blockchain, and they yawn, “Sounds like a notary public.”
My bias
As I sip my Pepperidge Farm, I can barely conceal my revulsion at those who think “we use AI” is a world-dominating marketing message. Artificial intelligence is not a way of life. It is a tool. A tool that in and of itself does not merit much of a mention.
Google Gemini.
How many automobile manufacturers proclaim “we use tires” as part of their marketing messaging? Tires are essential to an automobile’s performance, but since everyone has them, they’re not a differentiator and not worthy of mention.
In the same way, everyone has AI…so why talk about its mere presence? Talk about the benefits your implementation provides and how these benefits differentiate you from your competitors.
Novel thinking
Yep, the grandpas that declare “AI is only a tool” are missing the significance entirely. AI is not like a Pentium chip. It is a transformational technology that is already changing the way we create, sell, and market.
Therefore it is critically important to highlight your product’s AI use. AI isn’t a “so what” feature, but an indication of revolutionary transformative technology. You suppress mention of AI at your own peril.
How do I overcome my biases of experience?
OK, so I’ve identified the outmoded thinking that results from too much experience. But how do I overcome it?
I don’t.
Because if you haven’t already detected it, I believe that experience IS valuable, and that all three items above are essential and shouldn’t be jettisoned for the new, novel, and kewl.
Are you a identity/biometric marketing leader who needs to tell your prospects that your algorithms are validated by reputable independent bodies?
Or that you have a process (simple or not) that governs how your customers receive your products?
Or that your AI actually does unique things that your competitors don’t, providing true benefits to your customers?
Bredemarket can help with strategy, analysis, content, and/or proposals for your identity/biometric firm. Talk to me (for free).
By the way, here’s MY process (and my services and pricing).
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.
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.
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.
I’ve decided to tweak Bredemarket’s public presentation by talking more about strategy. And although I’ve written some new strategy content recently, it’s a heck of a lot easier to repurpose some of the old content I’ve already written.
Such as my July 31, 2025 personal LinkedIn article (separate from Bredemarket’s “The Wildebeest Speaks”…which reminds me, I gotta write another one of those).
SMART: specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and time-bound.
OKRs: Objectives and Key Results.
Putting it simply, the article talked about the myriad of things a product marketer was expected to do at one company.
Or at any company, frankly. Product marketing job descriptions are fairly interchangeable. Go-to-market. Sales enablement. Competitive analysis. Metrics. Cross-functional collaboration. If you think YOUR company’s product marketing is amazing and different…it isn’t.
The entire list of product marketing duties is a bunch of tactical moves. A brochure here, a battlecard there. It could devolve into a lot of meaningless busywork. (Says the guy who has now written over 2,000 blog posts.)
But WHY are you doing all this junk?
That’s where the strategy comes to play.
Why?
For example, why are you establishing and obtaining approval for this?
“a multi-tiered go-to-market process identifying the go-to-market tiers, the customer-facing and internal deliverables for each tier, as well as the responsible, accountable, consulted, and informed organizations for each deliverable”
Let me list three reasons:
To ensure your go-to-market efforts contain the correct deliverables for the tier. Running around like a headless chicken to guess what you need to produce is idiotic.
To make sure everybody knows what they have to do. You don’t want a go-to-market effort to tank because the VP of Product won’t approve the customer success internal deliverable.
And let’s not forget the biggest reason of all: to allow the product in your go-to-market revenue to get a ton of orders and make a ton of revenue.
Because that’s why you’re marketing products…I hope.
Ask before you act
A helpful tip: before I get into the minutiae (tip your servers, I’m here all week) of a project, I ask a lot of questions first. “Why?” is the first question, but there are more.
The seven questions I ask. One you’ve seen the movie, now read the book.
Speaking of asking, if you want to ask Bredemarket for help with your strategy and tactics for content, proposal, and analysis work, click on the Content for Tech Marketers image below and schedule a free meeting with me.
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.
When Bredemarket begins an engagement with a client, I usually have no idea what processes, templates, or practices the client already has. So I have to handle whatever is or is not there and either understand what is there, adapt it, or create what is needed.
Understand
In some cases clients already have a process.
For example, as I delved into the Sharepoint library for one of Bredemarket’s clients, I found a complete set of branding guidelines that covered logos, colors, and many other aspects of the company’s branding.
In that case, my job is to simply make sure that I align with the client’s branding, and that my content, proposals, and analysis work for the client aligns with the branding guidelines…or with whatever other process the client has.
Adapt
Sometimes the client has a process, but it needs to be adapted in some way.
Here’s an example I can publicly share: not from a Bredemarket client, but from my former employer Motorola (back when Motorola was one company). I was a product manager at the time, and products were developed via a “stage gate” process. At Motorola, of course, it was called M-Gates.
Our “Printrak” group (automated fingerprint identification systems, computer aided dispatch systems, and the like) was the odd group out in our part of Motorola (the part that would later become Motorola Solutions). Most of the people in that part of Motorola sold police radios that were manufactured in bulk. Therefore the stage gate process included a step for a limited production run of police radios before moving to full production.
That didn’t apply for the software we sold to government systems. For example, the entire production run for the Omnitrak 8.1 release was no more than a half dozen systems for customers in Switzerland, Oklahoma, and other places. A limited production run wouldn’t make sense.
So OUR stage gate process eliminated that step and went straight to full production.
Create
And then there are the clients who don’t have anything. In these cases, my invention hat goes on.
For one Bredemarket client, I was asked to develop several pieces of collateral, such as (ironically) one on process maturity, and several random pieces of content tied to a product release.
I decided to approach it more systematically by introducing a simple go-to-market process that defined the external and internal collateral required for a “high” tier product release and a “low” tier product release. Resisting my urge to define something thorough, I simplified the GTM process as much as possible, while still providing guidance on what a product release should contain.
The client rejected the idea: “we don’t need no steenking process.”
Not surprisingly, the process maturity content was never released either.
I’ve had better luck with other Bredemarket clients, defining go-to-market, proposal, and other processes for them as needed.
Be Prepared
Providing product marketing expertise is much more than writing about a product.
Before I write a word of text, I ensure that the content aligns with the client’s strategies…or my own strategies if the client doesn’t have any.
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 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.
Bredemarket 