Tag Archives: emotions

Is the Funnel Consideration Phase Quantitative or Qualitative?

From Venn Marketing, “Awareness, Consideration, Conversion: A 4 Minute Intro To Marketing 101.” (Link)

The picture above shows a simple sales funnel example. The second of the three items in the funnel is the “consideration” phase.

  • In that phase, those people who are aware of you can then consider your products and services.
  • If they like what they see, they move on to conversion and hopefully buy your products and services.

But how do prospects in the funnel consideration phase evaluate your offering as opposed to competitor offerings? Is it truly a quantitative and logical process, or is it in reality qualitative and emotional?

Quantitative consideration

For purposes of this post, let’s assume that there are two competing companies, Bredemarket and Debamarket, who are fighting each other for business.

OK, maybe not literally. I have never boxed in my life. By Royal Navy official photographer – http://media.iwm.org.uk/iwm/mediaLib//31/media-31189/large.jpg This photograph A 29806 comes from the collections of the Imperial War Museums., Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=25124750

Second, let’s assume that Bredemarket and Debamarket offer similar services to their prospects and customers:

  • Blog posts
  • Case studies
  • White papers

Finally, let’s assume that a big government agency (the BGA) has issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for blog/case study/white paper services, and Bredemarket and Debamarket are the two companies competing for the award.

Source selection

Now I’m not a big-time pre-acquisition consultant like Applied Forensic Services, but I’ve been around long enough to know how pre-acquisition consultants work—especially when working with big government agencies like BGA.

A pre-acquisition consultant will develop a Source Selection Plan (SSP). In competitive procurements such as the one in this example, the SSP will state exactly how proposals will be evaluated, and how the best proposal will be selected.

Here is the U.S. Government’s guidance on Source Selection Plans. (link)

SSPs can be very complex for certain opportunities, and not so complex for others. In all cases, the SSP dictates the evaluation criteria used to select the best vendor.

Michael Ropp of RFP360 has published a very simple example of how a particular group of proposal responses may be evaluated.

The weighted scoring approach breaks down your RFP evaluation criteria and assigns a value to each question or section. For example, your RFP criteria may consider questions of technical expertise, capabilities, data security, HR policies and diversity and sustainability. Weighted scoring prioritizes the criteria that are most important to your business by assigning them a point or percentage value. So your weighted scoring criteria may look like this: 

  • Technical expertise – 25%
  • Capabilities – 40%
  • Data security – 10%
  • HR policies – 10%
  • Diversity and sustainability – 15%
RFP360, “A guide to RFP evaluation criteria: Basics, tips and examples.” (Link)

Individual question evaluation

In most cases the evaluator doesn’t look at the entire technical expertise section and give it a single score. In large RFPs, the technical expertise section may consist of 96 questions (or even 960 questions), each of which is evaluated and fed into the total technical expertise score.

For example, the RFP may include a question such as this one, and the responses from the bidders (Bredemarket and Debamarket) are evaluated.

QuestionBredemarketDebamarket
96. The completed blog post shall include no references to 1960s songs.0.8 points awarded.

While many Bredemarket blog posts comply, “How Remote Work Preserves Your Brain” does not.		1.0 points awarded.

Debamarket fully complies.
Example evaluation of a proposal response to an individual RFP question.

Final quantitative recommendation for award

Now repeat this evaluation method for every RFP question in every RFP category and you end up with a report in which one of the vendors receives more points than the other and is clearly the preferred bidder. Here’s an example from a U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposal source selection process. (And you can bet that a nuclear agency doesn’t use an evaluation method that is, um, haphazard.)

From U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “FINAL EVALUATION RECOMMENDATION REPORT FOR
PROPOSALS SUBMITTED UNDER RFP NO. RQ-CIO-01-0290
ENTITLED, “INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES AND SUPPORT
CONTRACT (ISSC).”” (link)

So what does this example show us? It shows that L-3 Communications/EER received a total score of 83.8, while its closest competitor Logicon only received a score of 80. So EER is the preferred bidder.

So in our example, BGA would evaluate Bredemarket and Debamarket, come up with a number for each bidder, and award the contract to the bidder with the highest evaluation score.

Quantitative recommendation for the little guys

Perhaps people who aren’t big government agencies don’t go to this level of detail, but many prospects who reach the consideration phase use some type of quantitative method.

For example, if the (non-weighted) pros for an item under consideration outnumber the cons, go for it.

“What are Pro and Con Lists?” (link)

Five pros and only three cons. Do it!

All quantative, objective, and straightforward.

If people really evaluate that way.

But is consideration quantitative?

Now of course the discussion above assumes that everyone is a logical being who solely evaluates based on objective criteria.

But even Sages such as myself may deviate from the objective norm. Here’s a story of one time when I did just that.

As I previously mentioned, I had never written a proposal response before I started consulting for Printrak. But I had written a Request for Proposal before I joined Printrak. For a prior employer (located in Monterey Park), I worked with an outside consultant to develop an RFP to help my employer select a vendor for a computer system. The questions posed to the bidders were not complex. Frankly, it was a simple checklist. Does your computer system perform function A? Does it perform function B?

The outside consultant and I sent the final RFP to several computer system providers, and received several proposals in response.

  • A few of the proposals checked every box, saying that they could do anything and everything. We threw those proposals out, because we knew that no one could meet every one of our demanding requirements. (“I can’t trust that response.”)
  • We focused on the proposals that included more realistic responses. (“That respondent really thought about the questions.”)

As you can see, we introduced a qualitative, emotional element into our consideration phase.

According to Kaye Putnam, this is not uncommon.

Qualitative consideration

Humans think that we are very logical when we consider alternatives, and that our consideration processes are logical and quantitative. Putnam has looked into this assertion and says that it’s hogwash. Take a look at this excerpt from Putnam’s first brand psychology secret:

Your brand has to meet people at that emotional level – if you want them to buy. (And I know you do!)  

Findings from several studies support this, but one of the most seminal was outlined in Harvard professor Gerald Zellman’s 2003 book, The Subconscious Mind of the Consumer. Zellman’s research and learnings prompted him to come to the industry-rocking conclusion that, “95 percent of our purchase decision making takes place in the subconscious mind.”

From Kaye Putnam, “7 Brand Psychology Secrets – Revealed!” (link)

But how can the subconscious mind affect quantitative evaluations?

While logic still has to play SOME role in a purchase decision (as Putnam further explains in her first and second brand psychology secrets), a positive or negative predisposition toward a bidder can influence the quantitative scores.

Imagine if the evaluators got together and discussed the Bredmarket and Debamarket responses to question 96, above. The back and forth between the evaluators may sound like this:

  • “OK, we’re up to question 96. That’s a no brainer, because no one would ever put song references in a BGA blog post.”
  • “Yeah, but did you see Bredemarket’s own post that has multiple references to the song ‘Dead Man’s Curve’?”
  • “So what? Bredemarket would never do that when writing for a government agency. That piece was solely for Bredemarket.”
  • “How do you KNOW that Bredemarket would never slip a song reference into a BGA post? You know, I really don’t trust that guy. He wore two different colored shoes to the orals presentation, a brown one and a black one. Someone as slopy as that could do anything, with huge consequences for BGA communications. I’m deducting points from Bredemarket for question 96.”
  • “OK. I think you’re being ridiculous, but if you say so.”

And just like that, your quantitative logical consideration process is exposed as a bunch of subconscious emotional feelings.

How does qualitative consideration affect you?

As you develop your collateral for the consideration phase, you need to go beyond logic (even if you have a Sage predisposition) and speak to the needs and pain points of your prospects.

Yes, pain.

Spock is behaving illogically. Jayenkai, “Pain – Star Trek Remix.” (link)

Here’s a example from my law enforcement automated fingerprint identificaiton system (AFIS) days.

  • If your prospect is a police chief who is sick and tired of burglars ransacking homes and causing problems for the police department, don’t tell your prospect about your AFIS image detail or independent accuracy testing results. After all, 1000 ppi and 99.967 accuracy are only numbers.
  • Provide the police chief with customer-focused benefit statements about how quickly your AFIS will clean up the burglary problem in the town, giving residents peace of mind and the police department less stress.

If you can appeal to those emotions, that police chief will consider you more highly and move on to conversion (purchase).

Can I help?

If your messaging concentrates on things your prospects don’t care about, most of them will ignore you and not shower you with money. Using the wrong words with your customers impacts your livelihood, and may leave you poor and destitute with few possessions.

Remember what I said about pain points? By Unknown author – Library of Congress[1], Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=6237178

If you need a writer to work with you to ensure that your written content includes the right words that speak directly to your prospects, hire…Debamarket!

Oh wait. Debamarket is fictional.

OK, talk to Bredemarket then.

How Non-Commodity Content Creators Collaborate with Clients

On Friday, I shared a Kaye Putnam video on my Bredemarket LinkedIn page.

From https://www.linkedin.com/posts/bredemarket_be-irreplaceable-differentiate-your-brand-activity-7085682536026165249-tq01/

While I won’t go into all of the video details here (you should spend a few minutes and watch Putnam’s video yourself), one of the points that Putnam made was that the best content creators need to differentiate themselves from commodity content providers—in other words, to “be irreplaceable.”

If it’s not obvious how your product or service is wildly different, not just better, your ideal clients will resort to looking at you like a commodity.

Kaye Putnam, from the transcript to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNGos1kVIdM

One of the ways in which content creators can differentiate themselves from their competition is to have a unique process.

In addition to having the emotional appeal and positioning that we already talked about, you can employ tools like having a proprietary process. A unique way of achieving a desired result.

Kaye Putnam, from the transcript to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNGos1kVIdM

I’d like to look at one such process, the process in which a content creator collaborates with a client, but I’d like to take a look at how two very different content creators achieve the same outcome.

How Bredemarket collaborates with clients

One of the many differentiators between Bredemarket and its marketing and writing competitors is the way that Bredemarket kicks off projects.

Before I work with you, I ask a series of questions to better understand what you need.

(UPDATE OCTOBER 23, 2023: “SIX QUESTIONS YOUR CONTENT CREATOR SHOULD ASK YOU IS SO 2022. DOWNLOAD THE NEWER “SEVEN QUESTIONS YOUR CONTENT CREATOR SHOULD ASK YOU” HERE.)

Now these are not all of the questions that I ask. After all, my process is, um, “Bredemarket-developed.” (I avoid the word “proprietary” because of its negative connotations.) But the limited number of questions that I did share suggests how I try to understand you. Why you do what you do. How you do it. And so forth.

(If you are interested in this topic, I have written an entire e-book focused on the first six questions that I ask you. To download the e-book, visit my blog post “Six Questions Your Content Creator Should Ask You: the e-book version.”)

In true Putnam manner, I approach this entire process as a Sage, or someone who imparts wisdom which, when combined with your wisdom, results in an effective piece of content.

Yes, this is a Rembrandt painting, anticipating the next section of the blog post. By Rembrandt – The Yorck Project (2002) 10.000 Meisterwerke der Malerei (DVD-ROM), distributed by DIRECTMEDIA Publishing GmbH. ISBN: 3936122202., Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=157824

But not everyone is a Sage, and other content creators approach collaboration differently.

How Paso Artis collaborates with clients

As I’ve frequently said, my primary emphasis is words. My graphic execution capabilities are somewhat limited.

I did not draw this myself. Originally created by Jleedev using Inkscape and GIMP. Redrawn as SVG by Ben Liblit using Inkscape. – Own work, Public Domain, link.

But there are many, many people who have better graphic execution capabilities than I do.

One such person is the artist behind Paso Artis.

From https://www.facebook.com/paso.artis

Now I don’t know Paso Artis’ personal archetypes, but I’d be willing to bet that her primary archetype isn’t Sage. The obvious guess for her primary archetype is “Creator.”

Get ready to celebrate the power of your creative brand archetype! Whether you resonate with being an Artist, musician, writer, dreamer, builder, or designer, your brand has the incredible ability to amaze and inspire others.

When customers encounter your creative brand, they can’t help but feel captivated. They look at your work and think, “I want to be able to do what they can.” Your brand ignites a spark of inspiration and ignites the imagination within those who connect with it.

One of your innate advantages as a creative brand is your boundless creativity and imagination. You possess the unique ability to see the world in a different light, to think outside the box, and to breathe life into your visions.

Kaye Putnam, from https://www.kayeputnam.com/brand-archetype-creator/

A few of you may recall that I initially thought that I was a “Creator,” until I realized that this archetype applies more to imagery rather than words. And not stick figures.

Despite our vast differences, Paso Artis and Bredemarket have one similarity.

  • We both work together with our clients to create a piece of content that satisfies the clients’ needs.
  • With Bredemarket, it’s a written piece of content.
  • With Paso Artis, it’s a custom painting.

But because Paso Artis is…well, an artist, she doesn’t use Sage-like words and tables and bullet points to describe her client collaboration process. The Paso Artis-developed (again, I don’t like the word “proprietary”) collaboration process is described much more…artistically.

As an artist, I do feel the responsibility and privilege of taking a vision and turning it into a painting that will hang on the wall for years and be seen every day and regarded with affection.

Don’t be scared of handing over your dream to me.

In order to achieve a happy outcome, you and I will work together.

From https://www.facebook.com/paso.artis/about_details

Note that Paso Artis uses some words that Bredemarket never uses, such as “affection” and “dream.” Now I might use “vision” and “scared” in the proper context, but most of my clients and prospects do not dream of having their customers regard their products and services, or their blog posts or white papers, with affection. Even the Bredemarket client who chose to “truly say thank you for putting these (proposal) templates together” didn’t get affectionate about them. I mean, I love Microsoft Word, but I don’t LOVE Microsoft Word.

So Bredemarket and Paso Artis use a different vocabulary. This happens to come back to another point that Putnam made, to speak the language of your clients.

If you only know Italian and your ideal clients are speaking French, you might get a few people that understand what you mean, but it’s not going to have the transformative effect that we’re looking for. You want to learn to be fluent. In the decision making language of your ideal clients.

Kaye Putnam, from the transcript to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNGos1kVIdM

Marketers, imagine if you will a possible persona for a Paso Artis prospect.

By David Teniers the Younger – 1. Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, Bilddatenbank.2. khm.at, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=659517

“Jay” is a homeowner who loves art and desires a particular type of painting for his home, but does not have the artistic talent to paint it himself. Ideally, the completed painting will be one that brings Jay delight when he sees it in his home, and will also delight his guests. But can he trust anyone to realize his dream?

So Paso Artis (who has years of marketing experience in her day job work) knows that she has to address Jay’s pain points. She first does this by addressing them in her “About” text (“Don’t be scared of handing over your dream to me”), but then addresses them more deeply during her consultation with Jay.

I have never performed a competitive analysis of artists who respond to commission requests, but I’d guess that some are better at collaborating with clients than others.

And the ones that collaborate well earn a positive reputation, which translates to increased revenue over those who don’t collaborate well.

How should YOU collaborate?

But of course Bredemarket doesn’t matter, and Paso Artis doesn’t matter. You matter.

When you collaborate with a partner, either one in which the partner provides a product or service to you, or you provide a product or service to the partner, make sure that both of you are on the same page (or easel) before launching into the work project.

And if you have a dream for a painting, contact Paso Artis via her Facebook page.

And if you want your blog posts, white papers, case studies, and other content to be regarded with affection (or something like that), contact Bredemarket.

On Benefits, Features…and Advantages

I’m trying to flesh out the usefulness of the Bredemarket website.

  • Initially, much of the content was benefit-focused.
  • As the website matured, I began to include and flag more information on features—not only as features relate to benefits, but also discussing features independent of benefits (example: my discussion of the Touch ID feature).
  • It’s time to throw one other term into the mix.

Using bad statistics, addition of a third term to the two existing terms improves bredemarket.com by a whopping 50%.

Not bad for (more than) 5 minutes of work.

Review of features and benefits

The home page for the product management platform provider Airfocus, https://airfocus.com/

Airfocus has published an article about…well, I’m not going to reveal the title yet, because that gives away the massive surprise ending.

(Whoops; I already revealed it. Pay no attention to the title behind the blog post.)

For now, I’ll just say that the article discusses features and benefits.

Here’s how Airfocus defines features (which coincides with my own definition of features):

(Features) are characteristics that a product or service has. It is a simple statement about attributes. 

For example: ‘An automated photo storage app that edits, selects and stores photos’ 

From Airfocus

Contrast this definition of features with Airfocus’ definition of benefits (which again coincides with my own definition of benefits):

A benefit…is why a prospect would ultimately use a product.

This key benefit provides an emotional hook point that you can leverage in helping the user imagine the positive experiences felt by using your product. 

For example: ‘If you don’t waste your time editing and can store more of your best photos, you’ll keep happier memories for longer’.

From Airfocus

So again, the feature is a characteristic of a product (or what the product does), while a benefit explains why that characteristic is important to a prospect.

This is good in and of itself, and has served me well for years. I could stop right here, but I’ve just passed 400 Bredemarket blog posts and am on a roll to get up to 500.

So I’m going to tell you that Airfocus expands the feature-benefit model by defining an middle category between features and benefits.

The stage between a feature and a benefit

Airfocus defines the intermediate step between a feature and benefit as follows:

An advantage is what that feature does, and how it helps. These are factual and descriptive but do not yet make a connection as to how it will make users’ life better. 

For example: ‘It automatically keeps only the clearest picture of a similar set, and deletes the rest. Your photo storage is reduced on average by 80%.

From Airfocus, https://airfocus.com/glossary/what-is-a-features-advantages-and-benefits-analysis/

So now it’s time for the big surprise. The third word is advantage.

No, not tennis. By kance – https://www.flickr.com/photos/kentmercurio/59629166/, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=507392

Perhaps I’m oversimplifying the analysis, but the three terms (features, advantages, and benefits) can be related as follows, using my three favorite question adverbs and incorporating Airfocus’ examples:

FeatureWhatAutomated photo storage app
AdvantageHowReduce photo storage 80%
BenefitWhyKeep happier memories for longer
I’ll use this caption to plug my first e-book, which you can get here.

Since I talk about benefits ad nauseum, you may get the mistaken view that features and advantages don’t matter. They do matter—in the proper context. For example, if you’re working on a data sheet or a user manual (if they still exist), you definitely need a feature list and could probably use an advantage list also.

Now do you have to use a feature-advantage-benefit model, instead of the simpler feature-benefit model?

Not at all.

But if you find it helpful, use it.

How the “CSI effect” can obscure the limited role of DNA-based investigative leads

(Part of the biometric product marketing expert series)

People have been talking about the “CSI effect” for decades.

In short, the “CSI effect” is characterized as the common impression that forensic technologies can solve crimes (and must be used to solve crimes) in less than an hour, or within the time of a one-hour television show.

Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=13587416

When taken to its extreme, juries may ask why the law enforcement agency didn’t use advanced technological tools to solve that jaywalking case.

Advanced technological tools like DNA, which has been commonly perceived to be the tool that can solve every single crime.

Well, that and video, because video is powerful enough to secure a conviction. But that’s another story.

Can DNA result in an arrest in a Denver homicide case?

A case in point is this story from KDVR entitled “DNA in murder case sits in Denver crime lab for 11 months.”

This is a simple statement of fact, and is not that surprising a statement of fact. Many crime labs are inundated with backlogs of DNA evidence and other forensic evidence that has yet to be tested. And these backlogs ARE creating difficulties in solving crimes such as rapes.

But when you read the article itself, the simple statement of fact is painted as an abrogation of responsibility on the part of law enforcement.

A father is making an emotional plea and putting up $25,000 of his own money to help find his son’s killer.

He is also asking the Problem Solvers to look into the time it has taken for DNA evidence to be tested in this case and others.

Tom O’Keefe said it’s taking too long to get answers and justice.

From this and other statements in the article, a picture emerges of an unsolved crime that can only be solved by the magical tool of DNA. If DNA is applied to this, just like they do on TV, arrests will be made and the killer will be convicted.

So why is it taking so long to do this?

Why is justice not being served?

KDVR is apparently not run by impassioned activists, but by journalists. And it is important from a journalistic perspective to get all sides of the story. Therefore, KDVR contacted the Denver Police Department for its side of the story.

The Denver Police Department has identified all parties involved, and the investigation shows multiple handguns were fired during this incident. While this complex case remains open, which limits details we can provide, we can verify that a significant amount of forensic work has been completed, but some remains. Investigators believe the pending forensic analysis can potentially support a weapon-related charge but will not further the ongoing homicide investigation.

OK, let’s grant that they’re not trying to identify an unknown assailant, since “all parties involved” are known.

But once that DNA is tested, isn’t that going to be the magic tool that provides the police with probable cause to arrest the killer?

Um, no.

Even IF the DNA evidence DOES happen to show a significant probability that an identifiable person committed the homicide, that in itself is not sufficient reason to arrest someone.

Why not?

Because you can’t arrest someone on DNA evidence alone.

DNA evidence can provide an investigative lead, but it has to be corroborated with other evidence in order to secure an arrest and a conviction. (Don’t forget that the evidence has to result in a conviction, and in most of the United States that requires that the evidence show beyond a reasonable doubt that the person committed the crime.)

Why was a serial killer in three European countries never brought to justice, despite overwhelming DNA evidence?

Reasonable schmeasonable.

If DNA ties someone to a crime, then the person committed the crime, right?

Let’s look at the story of a serial killer who terrorized Europe for over a decade, even though ample DNA evidence was found at each of the murder scenes, beginning with this one:

In 1993, a 62-year-old woman was found dead in her house in the town of Idar-Oberstein, strangled by wire taken from a bouquet of flowers discovered near her body.

Nobody had any information on what might have happened to Lieselotte Schlenger. No witnesses, no suspects, no signs of suspicious activity (except for the fact that she’d been strangled to death with a piece of wire, of course). But on a bright teacup near Schlenger, the police found DNA, the only clue to surface at all.

The case went cold, given that the only lead was the DNA of an unknown woman, and there was no match. Yet.

Eight years later, in 2001, there was a match when the same woman’s DNA was found at a murder scene of a strangulation victim in Freiburg, Germany. Police now knew that they were dealing with a serial killer.

But this time, the woman didn’t wait another eight years to strike again.

Five months after the second murder scene, her DNA showed up on a discarded heroin syringe, after a 7-year-old had stepped on it in a playground in Gerolstein. A few weeks later it showed up on an abandoned cookie in a burgled caravan near Bad Kreuznach, like she’d deliberately spat out a Jammy Dodger as a calling card. It was found in a break-in in an office in Dietzenbach, in an abandoned stolen car in Heilbronn, and on two beer bottles and a glass of wine in a burgled bar in Karlsruhe, like she’d robbed the place but stuck around for a few cheeky pints.

And her activities were not confined to Germany.

Over the apparent crime spree, her DNA was sprayed across an impressive 40 crime scenes in Austria, southern Germany, and France, including robberies, armed robberies, and murders.

In 2009, the case took an even more bizarre turn.

Police in France had discovered the burned body of a man, believed to be from an asylum seeker who went missing in 2002. During his application, the man had submitted fingerprints, which the police used to try and confirm his identity. Only, once again, they found the DNA of the phantom.

“Obviously that was impossible, as the asylum seeker was a man and the Phantom’s DNA belonged to a woman,” a spokesperson for the Saarbrücken public prosecutor’s office told Spiegel Online in 2009.

But how could this be?

DNA evidence had tied the woman, or man, or whatever, to six murders and numerous other crimes. There was plenty of evidence to identify the criminal.

What went wrong?

Well, in 2009 police finally figured out how DNA evidence had ended up at all of these crime scenes in three countries.

The man’s death led to an explanation of the case: there was no serial killer, and the DNA could be traced to a woman working in a packing center specializing in medical supplies. It was all down to DNA contamination.

Well, couldn’t that packing woman be convicted of the serial murders and other crimes, based upon the DNA evidence?

No, because there was no other evidence linking the woman to the crimes, and certainly “reasonable doubt” (or the European criminal justice equivalent) that the woman was also the dead male asylum seeker.

This is why DNA is only an investigative lead, and not evidence in and of itself.

But the Innocence Project always believes that DNA is authoritative evidence, right?

Even those who champion the use of DNA admit this.

If you look through the files of people exonerated by the Innocence Project, you find a common thread in many of them.

Much of the evidence gathered before the suspect’s original conviction indicated that the suspect was NOT the person who committed the crime. Maybe the family members testified that the suspect was at home the entire time and couldn’t have committed the crime in question. Or maybe the suspect was in another city.

However, some piece of evidence was so powerful that the person was convicted anyway. Perhaps it was eyewitness testimony, or perhaps something else, but in the end the suspect was convicted.

Eventually the Innocence Project got involved, and subsequent DNA testing indicated that the suspect was NOT the person who committed the crime.

This in and of itself didn’t PROVE that the person was innocent, but the DNA test aligned with much of the other evidence that had previously been collected. It was enough to cast a reasonable doubt on the conviction, allowing the improperly convicted suspect to go free.

But there are some cases in which the Innocence Project says that even DNA evidence is not to be trusted.

Negligence in the Baltimore Police Department’s crime lab tainted DNA analysis in an unknown number of criminal cases for seven years and raises serious questions about other forensic work in the lab, the Innocence Project said today in a formal allegation that the state is legally required to investigate.

DNA contamination, the same thing that caused the issues in Europe, also caused issues in Baltimore.

And there may be other explanations for how a person’s DNA ended up at a crime scene. Perhaps a police officer was careless and left his or her DNA at a crime scene. Perhaps someone was at a crime scene and left DNA evidence, even though that person had nothing to do with the crime.

In short, a high probability DNA match, in and of itself, proves nothing.

Investigative leads and reasonable doubt are very important considerations, even if they don’t fit into a one-hour TV show script.

Why is Kaye Putnam happy that I’m IGNORING her marketing advice?

This is the cover art for the album Parsley, Sage, Rosemary and Thyme by the artist Simon & Garfunkel. The cover art can be obtained from Columbia. Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=2184092

A few hours after finishing my revision of Bredemarket’s work process, I attended this month’s Orange County (California) Freelancers Union SPARK webinar. I’ve shared some things from SPARK meetings in the past (July’s happy hour, May’s AB2257 discussion), and I’m going to share some things from the August meeting also.

Jung and the restless

This meeting (which also happened to be the national Freelancers Union meeting for the month; our chapter rules!) was led by Cara Raffele, who spoke about “The Power of Storytelling.”

From https://www.freelancersunion.org/community/spark-events/#spark–monthly-theme, although it might have changed by the time you read this.

I’m not going to talk about the ENTIRE meeting, but will focus on the last part of the meeting, during which Raffele discussed “understanding your brand for maximum impact,” or brand archetypes.

The idea of archetypes started with Carl Jung, who defined them as images and themes that derive from the collective unconscious.

Jung claimed to identify a large number of archetypes but paid special attention to four. Jung labeled these archetypes the Self, the Persona, the Shadow and the Anima/Animus.

In modern-day marketing, this “large number of archetypes” has been boiled down to twelve, and it was these twelve that Raffele referenced in her presentation.

Twelve archetypes. From https://www.kayeputnam.com/brandality-archetypes/. More about Kaye Putnam later.

Raffele encouraged all of us freelancers to listen to all twelve, and then to select multiple archetypes (not just one) that seemed to reflect our freelance brands. So I iterated a first cut at the archetypes that I believed applied to Bredemarket; my preliminary list included Sage, Creator, and Explorer.

From https://twitter.com/JEBredCal/status/1423068533278142466.

Why Sage? That particular one resonated with me because of my experiences with my clients (educating on benefits vs. features, expanding the understanding of law enforcement agency stakeholders), and because of the way I’ve been marketing myself anyway. After all, when I self-reference as the biometric content marketing expert and the biometric proposal writing expert, then it’s obvious that I can add the sage to my clients’ parsley, rosemary, and thyme. (Sorry, couldn’t resist, even though I know it’s bad.)

From https://twitter.com/JEBredCal/status/1423304673977540614.

But after guessing that Bredemarket is Sage with a pinch of Creator and Explorer, I realized that I might not know myself as well as I thought, so I asked if there were some type of online “archetypes test,” similar to the online Meyers-Briggs personality tests, that could help you semi-independently discern your archetypes.

Raffele responded by pointing us to Kaye Putnam and her online Brand Personality Quiz.

(One aside before moving on to Putnam’s test. A few of you realize that I did not come up with the section title “Jung and the restless” on my own. Yes, I stole it from a Steve Taylor song title (and he stole it from a soap opera). I used the title even though Taylor is frankly not that positive about secular psychology. But he did say “some of my best friends are shrinks.” Oh, and that’s obviously Gym Nicholson of Undercover fame on guitar.)

From https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JNOMb_IG8I.

My “Brand Personality Quiz” results, and Kaye Putnam’s recommendations

If you’ve taken an online Meyers-Briggs personality test, or any other similar online test, the process of the Brand Personality Quiz will seem familiar to you. Putnam’s quiz asks you a series of independent questions, some of which have as many as twelve options. It then tabulates your answers against attributes of the twelve brand archetypes, and produces a final result listing a primary brand archetype and some secondary archetypes.

Here are my results.

So if you take Putnam’s quiz as gospel, I was somewhat accurate in my initial self-assessment.

  • Note that “Sage” came first and “Explorer” came second in the quiz results, and those were two of the archetypes I initially tweeted about before taking the quiz.
  • Considering the personal writing style I use in my blog, tweets, and elsewhere, “Entertainer” wasn’t much of a surprise either.
  • Upon further personal reflection, “Royalty” makes sense also. (So bow before me, serfs.)

And after reading Putnam’s description of “Creator” and its emphasis on visual presentation (rather than textual presentation), I can see why this was NOT on the list.

I did not draw this myself. Originally created by Jleedev using Inkscape and GIMP. Redrawn as SVG by Ben Liblit using Inkscape. – Own work, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1692938

Along with my results, Putnam provided a link that allowed me to download a brief description of my primary archetype, Sage. Now this brief description doesn’t include all of the detail found in Putnam’s 12 Brandfluency courses (one for each archetype), but it does include many actionable items.

The “Sage Inspiration Kit” provides useful tips for Sage businesspeople to include in their brand marketing. The kit asserts that if the tips are followed, the results will produce emotional responses in potential clients that will increase brand attractiveness, thus allowing businesspeople to win more business (and win better business).

Tips are provided on the following:

  • Color.
  • Typography.
  • Words.

Obviously that’s a lot of stuff to absorb, even in this brief kit. (The paid course offers tips in additional areas.) And even if I wanted to, I couldn’t change all the colors and fonts in my marketing overnight.

But I could look at Putnam’s word suggestions.

Ignoring the expert

Now Kaye Putnam’s word suggestions are freely available to anyone, but I’m not going to just copy all of them and reproduce them here. Request them yourself. (The link is for the Sage archetype)

But I’ll offer comments on a few of the 18 words and phrases in the kit.

From https://xkcd.com/386/. Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 Generic (CC BY-NC 2.5).

First off, I’m NOT going to use “think tank” in Bredemarket’s marketing. Perhaps this phrase may resonate for a larger firm, or even for a smaller firm with a team of people addressing their clients’ needs. But it would take a lot of stretching to describer a solopreneur think tank.

Another term that DOESN’T make sense for Bredemarket is “engineering.” Now obviously engineering is a good thing, although I’ve seen cases where engineering is overemphasized. But it doesn’t really make sense for my business, in which I make a point of emphasizing my ability to communicate engineering concepts to non-engineers. The same issues apply with the phrase “the code.”

I won’t go into all of my concerns, but there are several “Sage words” in the list that I would never use for Bredemarket, or would use very sparingly.

And that’s…OK

Remember, of course, that Stuart Smalley is not a licensed practitioner. By http://www.tvacres.com/words_stuart.htm, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=31855280

When someone gives you advice, whether it’s Kaye Putnam or John Bredehoft, you have to judge whether the advice is good for YOU.

Even if you narrow a brand down to one archetype, there are innumerable differences between individuals who align with this archetype. One size does not fit all, and I personally may love the term “experiment” but hate the terms listed above.

Now perhaps I may be wrong in rejecting Putnam’s advice. Perhaps there’s a really, really good reason why I should sprinkle the phrase “think tank” through all of my marketing materials.

But in the end it’s up to the recipient to decide whether or not to follow the advice of the expert. That applies to people giving advice to me, and that also applies to the advice that I give to my clients. (If a client insists on using the phrase “best of breed,” I can’t stop the client from doing so.)

But several of those words and phrases DO seem like good ideas, and I’ll probably make a concerted effort to sprinkle the GOOD words and phrases throughout Bredemarket’s website, social media channels, proposals, and other marketing.

Even though this might require me to re-revise the content creation process that I just revised.

Oh well. It’s good to…experiment with things. After all, Bredemarket is in effect a laboratory in which I like to try solutions out myself before I try to make a case for them with my clients. It’s easier to speak to research-based proven solutions than ones with which I have no experience at all.

By Rembrandt – The Yorck Project (2002) 10.000 Meisterwerke der Malerei (DVD-ROM), distributed by DIRECTMEDIA Publishing GmbH. ISBN: 3936122202., Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=157824

Did that paragraph sound sage-like? I got six of the words/phrases into that paragraph!

Oh, and if you’re looking for a Royally Entertaining and Exploring Sage…

Bredemarket offers clients deep experience in content marketing, proposals, and strategy. I can offer expert advice to biometrics firms, since (as noted above) I am a biometric content marketing expert and a biometric proposal writing expert. However, this expert advice can also be provided to other technology firms, and to general business.

You can read here about how my content creation process ensures that the final written content (a) advances your GOAL, (b) communicates your BENEFITS, and (c) speaks to your TARGET AUDIENCE.

If Bredemarket can fill a gap in your company’s needs (NOTE TO SELF: DO NOT MENTION PARSLEY. DO NOT MENTION PARSLEY. DO NOT MENTION PARSLEY.), then feel free to contact me and we can discuss your needs and possible solutions.

The Digital Green Certificate (EU Green Pass), for and against

So I attended the ID4Africa webcast that discussed vaccination certificates, including its discussion of harmonization of the myriad of certificates—a topic that clearly interests me.

If you didn’t already hear this on my recent podcast (microcast?) episode, Pavlina Navratilova of IDEMIA discussed three vaccination certificate standards that affect Europeans. One of these is the Digital Green Certificate, also known as the EU Green Pass.

In this post I’ll explain what the Digital Green Certificate is, why some people think this health measure is essential to the continuance of civilization, and why some people think it destroys civilization as we know it.

Or something like that.

What is the Digital Green Certificate?

First, a clarification. The word “green” in Digital Green Certificate does not refer to saving the whales. It refers to “green means go” in terms of COVID-19. Specifically, a Digital Green Certificate is a digital proof that a person has either

tick iconbeen vaccinated against COVID-19
tick iconreceived a negative test result or 
tick iconrecovered from COVID-19

The certificate will also be available in paper format for us old-school types, but the digital version is what interests me.

The certificate will not be issued by the EU itself, but by entities within each EU country such as health authorities or individual hospitals. The certificate will be in a person’s national language and in English (for those who have forgotten, English is no longer a national language within the European Union due to Brexit).

From https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/attachment/868508/Digital%20Green%20Certificate_en.pdf.pdf

Each certificate will contain a QR code to ensure authenticity, and these QR codes will be tracked at the EU level.

Each issuing body (e.g. a hospital, a test centre, a health authority) has its own digital signature key. All of these are stored in a secure database in each country.

The European Commission will build a gateway. Through this gateway, all certificate signatures can be verified across the EU. The personal data encoded in the certificate does not pass through the gateway, as this is not necessary to verify the digital signature. The  Commission will also help Member States to develop a software that authorities can use to check the QR codes.

The idea is that any EU citizen can provide national proof of vaccination, negative test, or recovery from COVID and that this national proof will be accepted in any other EU country, subject to the specific rules of that country.

On the other hand, the EU does not want to restrict freedom of movement within the EU.

The Digital Green Certificate should facilitate free movement inside the EU. It will not be a pre-condition to free movement, which is a fundamental right in the EU.

For more details on the plans for the Digital Green Certificate, see this European Commission page. Work continues to get the Digital Green Certificate up and running, including approval of technical specifications.

Entities supporting the Digital Green Certificate

Like anything COVID-related, there are entities that support the Digital Green Certificate, and entities that oppose it.

One group of entities that supports the Digital Green Certificate is the European airline industry. Because of the adverse economic effects of COVID travel restrictions, the airline industry not only wants Digital Green Certificates, but it wants them in time for the summer travel season. Here’s an excerpt from a statement from Airlines for Europe (A4E):

A4E welcomed today’s decision by the European Parliament to fast-track the European Commission’s Digital Green Certificates proposal using an Urgent Procedure. A positive decision by the European Council later today would set in motion a vote on the certificates by the end of April, facilitating the European Commission’s plan to have the certificates operational by June….

“With vaccination programmes underway, I am even more confident travel will be possible this summer. Airlines are ready to re-connect Europe and support economic recovery. I look forward to working with A4E members and policy leaders on this critical work ahead”, (A4E Chairman John) Lundgren added.

The “get people on flights” message is loud and clear.

And it’s not just the airlines; this initiative is also supported by the World Travel and Tourism Council and European Travel Commission. And the European Tourism Manifesto. And the European Exhibition Industry Alliance.

And (most importantly!) the general concept is supported by Vince, who though he is no longer in the EU (did I mention Brexit?), wrote this back in April:

#vaccinationcertificates The reason we need mandatory #vaccinationcards is because of the #superspreaders who demonstrated yesterday. Banning them from #pubs#football.#holidays#events etc will force #covididiots to adhere to the rules or stay at home. @LBC

And then there is the view of the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) and the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS). They support the idea, but with some qualifications:

Andrea Jelinek, Chair of the EDPB, said: “A Digital Green Certificate that is accepted in all Member States can be a major step forward in re-starting travel across the EU. Any measure adopted at national or EU level that involves processing of personal data must respect the general principles of effectiveness, necessity and proportionality. Therefore, the EDPB and the EDPS recommend that any further use of the Digital Green Certificate by the Member States must have an appropriate legal basis in the Member States and all the necessary safeguards must be in place.”

Wojciech Wiewiórowski, EDPS, said: It must be made clear that the Proposal does not allow for – and must not lead to – the creation of any sort of central database of personal data at EU level. In addition, it must be ensured that personal data is not processed any longer than what is strictly necessary and that access to and use of this data is not permitted once the pandemic has ended. I have always stressed that measures taken in the fight against COVID-19 are temporary and it is our duty to ensure that they are not here to stay after the crisis.”

This raises an interesting point that was also raised (after I left) in the ID4Africa webinar: what will happen to the Digital Green Certificate in the long term? The attendees were polled on this question.

From https://twitter.com/ID4AfricaLive/status/1390311486757744646

Obviously the EDPB and EDPS prefer option 3, in which the Digital Green Certificate disappears once the pandemic is over.

Entities opposing the Digital Green Certificate

But not everyone believes that the Digital Green Certificate is a wonderful thing. Take the attitude of the the Dutch section of the International Commission of Jurists (NJCM), as expressed in a liberties.eu post.

As NJCM explains in a letter to the European Parliament, the EU has set up a system and infrastructure for Green Certificates, but only partially regulates the use of these Green Certificates. This leaves it up to member states to make their use mandatory, or to use Green Certificates in many more areas than just border control. Such mandatory use of Green Certificates may limit the freedom of movement, the right to not be discriminated against, the right to privacy, the right to data protection and, indirectly, the right to the integrity of the person (since the ability to travel is made conditional on undergoing testing or vaccination).

While the UK is (as I may have previously mentioned) outside of the EU, that country’s National Museum Directors’ Council has weighed in on the concept of vaccination certificates in general. Unlike airlines that believe that such certificates will encourage travel, the museum directors think these certificates will actually restrain it.

In the UK, where a government consultation on vaccine passports has proved controversial, a coalition of leading museum directors has spoken out against their potential use in museums. Such a scheme “sits at odds with the public mission and values of museums”, the National Museum Directors’ Council said, warning that it would constitute “an inappropriate form of exclusion and discrimination”. 

And, to be truthful, the existence of any type of vaccine certificate allows a distinction between those who are (believed to be) COVID-free and those who are not. You can use the emotionally-charged word “discrimination” or the less-charged “distinction,” but either way you’re dividing people into two groups.

The only way to remove such a distinction is to automatically assume that everyone has COVID. That could close the museums…

…but at least everyone will be treated equally without discrimination. So that’s a good thing…I guess…

Words matter, or the latest from the National Institute of Standards and Technology on problematic security terms

(Alternate title: Why totem pole blackmail is so left field.)

I want to revisit a topic I last addressed in December, in a post entitled “Words matter, or the latest from the Security Industry Association on problematic security terms.”

If you recall, that post mentioned the realization in the technology community that certain long-standing industry terms were no longer acceptable to many technologists. My post cited the Security Industry Association’s recommendations for eliminating language bias, such as replacing the term “slave” (as in master/slave) with the term “secondary” or “responder.” The post also mentions other entities, such as Amazon and Microsoft, who are themselves trying to come up with more inclusive terms.

Now in this particular case, I’m not that bent out of shape over the fact that multiple entities are coming up with multiple standards for inclusive language. (As you know, I feel differently about the plethora of standards for vaccine certificates.) I’ll grant that there might be a bit of confusion when one entity refers to a blocklist, another a block list, and a third a deny list (various replacements for the old term “blacklist”), but the use of different terms won’t necessarily put you on a deny list (or whatever) to enter an airport.

Well, one other party has weighed in on the inclusive language debate – not to set its own standards, but to suggest how its employees should participate in general standards discussions.

That entity is the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). I’ve mentioned NIST before in other contexts. But NIST just announced its contribution to the inclusive language discussion.

Our choice of language — what we say and how we say it — can have unanticipated effects on our audience, potentially conveying messages other than those we intend. In an effort to help writers express ideas in language that is both clear and welcoming to all readers, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has released new guidance on effective wording in technical standards.

The point about “unanticipated effects” is an interesting point. Those of us who have been in tech for a while have an understanding of what the term “blacklist” means, but what of the new person who sees the term for the first time?

So, since NIST employees participate in technical standards bodies, it is now publicly sharing its internal guidance as NISTIR 8366, Guidance for NIST Staff on Using Inclusive Language in Documentary Standards. This document is available in PDF form at https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8366.

It’s important to note that this document is NOT a standard, and some parts of this “guidance” document aren’t even guidance. For example, section 4.1 begins as follows:

The following is taken from the ‘Inclusive Language’ section of the April 2021 version of the NIST Technical Series Publications Author Instructions. It is not official NIST guidance and will be updated periodically based on user feedback.

The need to periodically update is because any type of guidance regarding inclusive language will change over time. (It will also change according to culture, but since NIST is a United States government agency, its guidance in this particular case is focused on U.S. technologists.)

The major contribution of the NIST guidance is to explain WHY inclusive language is desirable. In addition to noting the “unanticipated effects” of our choice of language, NIST documents five key benefits of inclusive language.

1. avoids false assumptions and permits more precise wording,

2. conveys respect to those who listen or read,

3. maintains neutrality, avoiding unpleasant emotions or connotations brought on by more divisive language (e.g., the term ‘elderly’ may have different connotations based on the age of an employee),

4. removes colloquialisms that are exclusive or usually not well understood by all (e.g., drink the Kool-Aid), and

5. enables all to feel included in the topic discussed.

Let me comment on item 4 above. I don’t know how many people know that the term “drink the Kool-Aid” originated after the Guyana murders of Congressman Dan Ryan and others, and the subsequent mass suicides of People’s Temple members, including leader Jim Jones.

Rev. Jim Jones at an anti-eviction rally Sunday, January 16, 1977 in front of the International Hotel, Kearny and Jackson Streets, San Francisco. By Nancy Wong – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=91003548

They committed suicide by drinking a cyanide-laced drink which may or may not have been Kool-Aid. The entire history (not for the squeamish) can be found here. But even in 2012, many people didn’t know that history, so why use the colloquialism?

So that’s the guidance. But for those keeping score on specific terms, the current guidance document mentions the a number of suggestions, either from NIST or other entities. I’m going to concentrate on three terms that I haven’t mentioned previously.

  • Change “blackmail” to “extortion.”
  • Change “way out in left field” to “made very inaccurate measurements.” (Not only do some people not understand baseball terminology, but the concepts of “left” and “right” are sometimes inapplicable to the situation that is under discussion.)
  • Change “too low on the primary totem pole” to “low priority.” (This is also concise.)

So these discussions continue, sometimes with controversy, sometimes without. But all technologists should be aware that the discussions are occurring.