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.
If your identity, biometric, or technology firm needs Bredemarket’s content-proposal-analysis services, book a meeting at https://bredemarket.com/mark/
Do you want your company’s message to appear in your blog…someday?
If it’s acceptable to your company to get a message out within 90 days, then don’t even bother to read the rest of this post. It’s going to sound ridiculous to you, and probably pretty scary, and frankly it will seem rather rushed.
But could you put me in contact with your competitors? Because while you’re delaying, your competitors are acting.
And can get messages out within 14 days.
(Day 1) Your competitor and its writer decide on the topic, goal, benefits, and target audience (and, if necessary, outline, section sub-goals, relevant examples, and relevant key words/hashtags, and interim and final due dates).
(Days 2-4) Then the writer puts a draft together for your competitor’s review, ideally within three calendar days.
(Days 5-7) The competitor reviews it, ideally within three calendar days. (Yes, I know that such projects sometimes end up on a company’s back burner and aren’t reviewed until a month later, but what if your competitor is motivated?)
(Days 8-10) The writer makes some final changes, again within three days.
(Days 11-13) The competitor approves the final changes, again within three days.
(Day 14) The competitor loads the text into its blog software, adds any necessary images, creates promotional posts on social media (often the original writer can draft those when they draft the blog post itself)…and THE BLOG POST IS LIVE.
So while you’re deciding when you will decide whether you want to say something, your competitor has already said it.
[O]ur research suggests that in 2025, the actual number of touchpoints before a sale varies between 1 and 50, depending on the prospect’s buying stage:
Inactive customers only need 1–3 touches on average
A warm inbound lead will need 5–12 touches
A cold prospect can require 20–50 touches
So I came up with a bright idea: just repeat my message: “Identity, biometric, and technology marketing leaders should use Bredemarket’s marketing and writing services for their content, proposal, and analysis needs.”
And repeat it 50 times. (Preferably in a shorter form.)
But before applying my mad copy/paste skillz, I checked…and Email Tool Tester also notes that product marketing doesn’t work that way either. Specifically, you need multiple touchpoints, and multiple TYPES of touchpoints, to ensure your message resonates with your hungry people.
Which means that Bredemarket needs to use multiple methods to communicate with my prospects.
I recently completed a long piece of content for a client, and flagged six sections that the client can share as shorter pieces of content. That’s seven pieces for the price of one. (And two touchpoints. 48 to go.)
The mood at the time was that the world was changing and generative AI bots and non-person entities could replace people.
Yes, I am familiar with the party line that AI wouldn’t replace anyone, but would empower everyone to do their jobs more effectively.
The layoff trackers told a different story.
As did the AI gurus who proclaimed that many jobs would soon be obsolete.
Strangely enough, “AI guru” was not one of the jobs that was going away. Which is odd. It seems to me that giving inspirational talks would be the perfect job for a non-person entity.
But many people agreed that entry-level jobs were ripe for rightsizing, meaning that those at the beginnings of their careers would have a much harder time finding work.
“Hardware giant IBM plans to triple entry-level hiring in the U.S. in 2026, according to reporting from Bloomberg. Nickle LaMoreaux, IBM’s chief human resource officer, announced the initiative….’And yes, it’s for all these jobs that we’re being told AI can do,’ LaMoreaux said.”
Because IBM has separated what AI can do from what it can’t do. IBM’s new positions are “less focused on areas AI can actually automate — like coding — and more focused on people-forward areas like engaging with customers.”
Guess what? Bots are not engaging. Well, maybe they’re more engaging than AI gurus…
Can you use people?
But I will go one step further and claim that human product marketers and content writers are more engaging than bot product marketers and content writers.
Believe me, I’ve tested this. Bredebot can fake 30 years of experience, but it’s not genuine.
If you want to engage with your prospects, don’t assign the job to a bot. That’s human work.
Bredemarket 