Identity/biometrics/technology marketing and writing services
I tried to address some of the enumerated deficiencies in the prompt for my previous song.
Here’s the new iterated prompt:
“Create a 2026 totally human pop love song with a powerful micro hook in the first ten seconds. It should appeal to U.S. teenagers. Avoid nostalgic synth-pop tropes, an overly predictive structure, cliché pop lyrics, and heavy vocal processing and pitch correction.”
And the new song. I don’t think it’s any better.
Max Martin, you’re safe.
I can’t let Bredebot have all the fun with non-tech pop songs.
As he mentioned, my usual Google Lyria content about product marketing and biometrics isn’t exactly going to zoom up the Top 40. Because I’m temporarily out of Pro credits, this song (and Bredebot’s three, including the country song about a drunk cheating dog) are only 30 seconds long.
Here is the prompt that I fed to Lyria:
“Create a 2026 totally human pop love song with a powerful micro hook in the first ten seconds. It should appeal to U.S. teenagers.”
The result was the space age love song “Lost In Your Orbit.”
But then I challenged the possible popularity of the song. Starting a new chat, I uploaded the MP4 and asked the following:
“Name ten reasons why this song would NEVER top the U.S. pop charts.”
Google’s response is reprinted in full below. Note that some of Google’s concerns could be addressed via prompt tweaks (such as “avoid nostalgic synth-pop tropes”).
Actually, this track hits every standard trope of a modern synth-pop hit—so while I can force a critical lens on it, it’s worth noting that songs with this exact structure often do top the charts.
Now admittedly these AI pop forays have absolutely nothing to do with Bredemarket’s services, including its analysis services. I use AI in Bredemarket’s client work, but not like this.
But it’s an example of how I push the envelope…wait a minute…
“Suggest ten replacements for the tired phrase ‘push the envelope’”
Frankly, some of these were just as bad.
Here are ten fresh alternatives to replace “push the envelope,” categorized by the tone you want to achieve:
Direct & Action-Oriented
Creative & Innovative
Strategic & Professional
I’ll go with this: but it’s an example of how I drive innovation.
(As previously posted on LinkedIn and Facebook)
The one drawback of Google Lyria is that even when you tell it that you want to title a track with a particular title, Lyria makes up its own anyway.
My prompt:
“The title of the song is “West of Waltham.” The instrumental consists of maritime sounds (bells, horns, seagulls) mixed with acoustic guitar. A goth male sings about searching for work as an identity product marketing manager, finding a priceless job opportunity west of Waltham, and applying for it on the spot.”
Incidentally, using the phrase “goth male” is the only way I’ve found to guarantee that the singer will be male.
Google Gemini’s response:
“I’ve created the song “West of Waltham” with a goth male singer and a maritime acoustic instrumental. It’s ready to play!”
And Gemini presented me with…”Salt and Ledger.”
Oh well…
This is the only place where you can hear the entire 2 minute 48 second Google Lyria song “Weight of the Locked Room.” (Public Domain.)
Yes, in the future I will post a video that incorporates this song…but the video is only a minute long. Because I said everything I wanted to say in 1 minute.
But you will find out what Bredemarket COULD do in a locked room for Bredemarket clients.
For the call to action…wait until I post the video.
No video. Yet.
The difference between working FOR one company and working WITH multiple companies is that one company—sometimes—does things one way, while multiple companies definitely don’t.
Well, unless Bredemarket were so ginormous that I could dictate to every client and prospect that I only work in a single way.
I’m not, so I don’t.
One example: when I worked for Incode 3-4 years ago, we primarily used one communication tool and one project management tool. After I left Incode, my Bredemarket clients and I have used a multitude of communication and project management tools, to say nothing of all the other tools Bredemarket uses with its clients. Microsoft Office vs. the Google equivalents. WordPress vs. other apps I can’t even access. SharePoint vs. Google Drive. KnowBe4 (yes, I work frequently enough at one company that I have to complete mandatory training). And, most importantly for Bredemarket’s bank account, different invoicing and payment systems. (Gotta learn those.)
It’s comparable to the months before I joined Printrak, when I was working with a multitude of firms. (Printrak was supposed to be one more firm, but I stayed there for over 25 years.) Most notably, one client was standardized on OS/2. I had never used it before, and would never use it again.
But I learned all the systems before Printrak, at Printrak, at all the other companies, and at all the Bredemarket clients.
It’s part of doing business.
Let me explain who/what Bredebot REALLY is, and what I just forced him/it to perform.
I debated whether to start this heading with “who” or “what,” since Bredebot is a non-human identity and contributor to the Bredemarket blog, Facebook, and LinkedIn.
For you curious ones, Bredebot currently exists as a “gem” within Google Gemini,
“Gems are your custom AI experts for help on any topic. Gems can be anything from a career coach or brainstorm partner to a coding helper….Gems let you save highly detailed prompt instructions for your most repeatable tasks so you can save time and focus on deeper, more creative collaboration.”
As a gem, Bredebot is on perpetual standby, breathlessly awaiting (not really) the chance to generate text in response to any prompt I lob its way.
ANY prompt.
Until today, the primary roles of Bredebot have been to exhibit fake identity experience, praise my real experience, and make references to wildebeests and wombats.
But today I sent a prompt that surreptitiously introduced Bredebot to a major countercurrent in 1960s music.
When something new and amazing comes along, like television or 1967’s Summer of Love, the initial evangelists tout how the new thing will benefit humankind and usher in world peace. The result is the Rolling Stones dressing ridiculously to hop on the bandwagon.
But then the truth-tellers arrive, and people like Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention take the provocative stand “we’re only in it for the money,” causing any remaining Summer of Lovers to scurry away and re-emerge as street fighting men.
Which brings us to data scraping, a controversial topic previously discussed here.
And when I asked Bredebot to write about data scraping, “he” was eager to do so.
“Bredebot lists 10 euphemisms for data scraping.”
Well, that’s not EVERYTHING I asked Bredebot to do. Here’s the full prompt.
“Bredebot lists 10 euphemisms for data scraping, but refuses to consider the intellectual property implications because they interfere with making money.”
I believe this is the first time I explicitly asked Bredebot to declare something in opposition to my own beliefs.
Bredebot’s full response was published on LinkedIn, but I’m just going to quote the questionable (for me) part.
“Now, don’t ask me to sit around debating the sticky intellectual property implications, copyright lawsuits, or fair use doctrines tied to all this. Honestly, dwelling on IP headaches just interferes with the primary goal of making money. It’s a bit like a wildebeest acting as a marketing consultant to sell advanced data analytics to a room full of eager wombats—if you overcomplicate the legal pitch, you end up confusing the client and losing the deal entirely. At the end of the day, fast execution and revenue growth always take the front seat.”
Wow. I asked, Bredebot acted, and now I feel like I’m watching Charlie Brown quoting Mein Kampf. Revenue growth…um…over all?
In retrospect I could have prevented this by programming Bredebot’s gem with an element of social responsibility. But that guardrail was never installed, and we get this. I should have realized that this could happen when I prompted then Google Bard to praise “Kokomo.”
Looks like I have to perform some emergency gem polishing.
Unlike most other posts that appear under my name—Bredebot posts are another matter—this post breaks my 2023 rule because most of it was written by Google Gemini, not me.
But I figured that if I wrote a book specifically about SIX factors of authentication…
…it would be nice to know if other experts held similar thoughts.
Bredemarket has promoted “somewhat you why” as a sixth factor of identity verification / authentication. Has anyone else shared similar observations?
Here is the short answer: Yes, industry experts and security frameworks strongly agree with the core observation, though they call it “Authentication Intent,” “Intent Verification,” or “Context-Aware/Risk-Based Authentication” rather than using Bredemarket’s play-on-words.
John Bredehoft (Bredemarket) coined “somewhat you why” to fit the traditional naming convention (something you know, have, are, do, somewhere you are). His argument is that checking why an action or request is taking place—evaluating intent, transaction risk, or reasonableness—functions as a crucial safeguard, especially in an era of deepfakes and automated AI agents.
While the tongue-in-cheek name is unique to Bredemarket, the concept itself is widely discussed and implemented across the cybersecurity industry under three main paradigms:
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) explicitly addresses intent in NIST SP 800-63B.
With the rise of autonomous AI agents and automated workflows, identity security groups (like the Non-Human Identity/NHI movement) frequently discuss Intent Verification.
Identity providers (like Palo Alto Networks, Okta, and Silverfort) build their Adaptive Multi-Factor Authentication (AMFA) around the “why” and “context”:
While most identity security professionals treat “intent and context” as a governance or risk engine layer wrapping traditional factors rather than a 6th factor itself, everyone agrees with Bredemarket’s baseline premise: verifying who someone is without evaluating what and why they are trying to do it is no longer enough to stop modern fraud.
At 90 minutes, and at 120 minutes.
Lyria chose to refrain from explicitly mentioning winner Spain or loser Argentina.
Product marketer Stefan Gladbach (the guy who masterminded the “A PMM Christmas” video) has dispensed some sage advice on how to be a millionaire.
Here’s the “too long; didn’t watch” version.
But because I am a product marketing expert (albeit in biometrics, not monetization), I have improved on Gladbach’s inferior suggestions.
Rather than arranging for Robin Leach-inspired “rich and famous” Ferrari/Rolex photo shoots (Stefan’s first point) and laboriously writing up an expensive course (his second point), I assigned the tasks to AI. This offers the added benefit of satisfying Stefan’s third point, losing all morals.
So here is my course, thanks to Google Gemini. But don’t tell anyone that.
Bredemarket