Most of my recent generative GI experiments have centered on Google Gemini…which has its limitations:
“Google Gemini imposes severe restrictions against creating pictures of famous figures. You can’t create a picture of President Taylor Swift, for example.”
Why does Google impose such limits? Because it is very sensitive to misleading the public, fearful that the average person would see such a picture and mistakenly assume that Taylor Swift IS the President. In our litigious society, perhaps this is valid.
“One common accusation about Grok is that it lacks the guardrails that other AI services have.”
During a few spare moments this morning, I signed up for a Bredemarket Grok account. I have a personal X (Twitter) account, but haven’t used it in a long time, so this was a fresh sign up.,
And you know the first thing that I tried to do.
Grok.
Grok created it with no problem. Actually, there is a problem, because Grok apparently is not a large multimodal model and cannot precisely generate text in its image generator. But hey, no one will notice “TWIRSHIITE BOUSE,” will they?
But wait, there’s more! After I generated the image, I saw a button to generate a video. I thought that this required the paid service, but apparently the free service allows limited video generation.
Grok.
I may be conducting some video experiments some time soon. But will I maintain my ethics…and my sanity?
A client recently asked me to perform some research. After initially performing one aspect of the research manually, I performed the second part of the research automatically using Google Gemini. I informed the client of my use of AI for the second part of the research.
This particular use case is separate from using AI for CONTENT, something I’ve been discussing for years. However, since part of Bredemarket’s services include ANALYSIS, I felt it best to disclose when someone other than me performed the analysis.
This post describes the two parts of my research (manual and automated), what I disclosed to my client, and why I disclosed it.
Part One (Manual)
My client required assistance in identifying people with a particular skill set (which I cannot disclose). To fulfill this request, I went into LinkedIn, performed some searches, read some profiles, and selected people who may possess the skills my client required.
After spending some time collecting the research, I forwarded it to the client.
Google Gemini.
Part Two (Automated)
Several hours after sending the initial research to my client, I thought about taking a separate approach to my client’s need. Rather than identifying people with this skill set, I wanted to identify COMPANIES with this skill set.
But this time, I didn’t manually perform the research. I simply created a Google Gemini prompt asking for the companies with this skill set, their website URLs, their email addresses, and their phone numbers.
“Deloitte’s member firm in Australia will pay the government a partial refund for a $290,000 report that contained alleged AI-generated errors, including references to non-existent academic research papers and a fabricated quote from a federal court judgment.”
Now in this case the refund was due to hallucinations in the AI-generated document.
But what of the fact that at least one of Deloitte’s report writers was the Deloitte equivalent of Bredebot?
Personally, I think that disclosure in this instance is required also.
Marketers are driven to accentuate the positive about their companies. Perhaps the company has a charismatic founder who repeatedly emphasizes how “insanely great” his company is and who talked about “bozos.” (Yeah, there was a guy who did both of those.)
And since marketers are often mandated to create both external and internal sales enablement content, their view of their own company and their own product is colored.
But if you ONLY pay attention to your positive story, you’re half blind.
You miss what your competitors are telling their prospects about you.
You miss what your departed customers are saying about you.
So ideally you should intentionally (and privately) seek the negative things that are said about your company.
One quick way to do this is to take advantage of answer engine optimization and ask a generative AI search engine what it thinks are the negatives about your company.
(I did this several years ago, when generative AI was in its infancy, and encountered some false statements about a company. So what did I do? Create corrective content that negated these negative statements. But I digress.)
I should demonstrate this with an example. But I shouldn’t ask about any of my former employers or former consulting clients. What’s a safe company that I can research and minimize the trouble I’d get into?
Google Gemini prompt: “What factors contribute to Bredemarket’s negative reputation?”
OK, this may get me in a little trouble, but it could be a lot worse if I targeted a larger company.
Anyway, I fed this prompt to Google Gemini, which identified two factors.
The first factor was “Indirect Backlash from Controversial Blog Content.” Google cited this post as an example, warning that I could get in trouble for expressing a “minority opinion.” That opinion? That changing the name of the Association of Proposal Management Professionals (APMP) to the Association of Winning Business Professionals (AWBP) was a GOOD thing. As it turn out, the APMP reversed the rebrand, so my opinion was definitely not popular in the long run.
But I’d rather focus on Google’s second factor, which I will reproduce in full.
2. General Reputation Factors (Lack of Public Reviews)
As a small-scale, expert-driven consulting/content service, Bredemarket’s reputation is likely not governed by major public review platforms like Yelp or Google Reviews in the same way a consumer business is. The absence of traditional positive or negative reviews means its reputation is less solidified publicly.
In general, factors that could negatively affect the reputation of any small consulting firm, which may apply to Bredemarket if not explicitly disproven, include:
Limited Public Visibility: If the brand is not widely known outside of a niche (proposal writing, identity/biometrics), a lack of positive brand presence can make it appear less credible than larger competitors.
Visual or Digital Identity: For a business-to-business (B2B) content provider, a website with a “neglected and too generic visual identity” could potentially undermine professionalism, although no evidence suggests this is the case for Bredemarket specifically.
Reliance on a Single Voice: As the service is heavily identified with the founder, John E. Bredehoft, any professional disagreement with his published opinions could be mistakenly interpreted as dissatisfaction with the entire “Bredemarket” service.
As you can see from reading the answer, Google didn’t really know a lot about Bredemarket…because of my LIMITED PUBLIC VISIBILITY.
AI from Google Gemini.
It didn’t really know Bredemarket’s VISUAL OR DIGITAL IDENTITY, and therefore couldn’t evaluate whether my wildebeest-infused graphics made up for the rather generic nature of my website. (Or whether the wildebeests and iguanas and the like are actually a detriment.)
AI from Google Gemini.
As for the last part, RELIANCE ON A SINGLE VOICE (Bredebot doesn’t count), that is pretty much unavoidable.
So in my analysis of what creates a negative reputation for my own company Bredemarket, the primary issue is my limited public visibility, or as marketers say limited awareness. Or, taking a word I’ve used in other contexts, the market’s indifference toward Bredemarket.
Sure I’m visible in some very specific niches (try an AEO search for “biometric product marketing expert” some time), but it’s not like the entire biometric industry or the entire city of Ontario, California is constantly talking about Bredmarket.
I need to step that awareness up by several orders of magnitude.
AI from Google Gemini.
Preferably not though public nudity. That would not be a positive. (Google Gemini wouldn’t even generate a picture of this, even with strategic placement of the “Bredemarket” sign. Good for them.)
Inspired by the Constant Contact session I attended at the Small Business Expo, I wanted to conceptualize the Bredemarket online presence, and decided to adopt a “planet with rings” model.
Think of Bredemarket as a planet. Like Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Jupiter, the planet Bredemarket is surrounded by rings.
A variety of social platforms, including Bluesky, Instagram, Substack, and Threads.
Additional social platforms, including TikTok, WhatsApp, and YouTube.
While this conceptualization is really only useful to me, I thought a few of you may be interested in some of the “inner rings.”
And if you’re wondering why your favorite way cool platform is banished to the outer edges…well, that’s because it doesn’t make Bredemarket any money. I’ve got a business to run here, and TikTok doesn’t help me pay the bills…
Biometric Update reports that Amazon’s Ring products are offering a feature called “Familiar Faces.”
“In September, Amazon revealed a revamped Ring camera lineup featuring two notable AI features, Familiar Faces and Search Party. Familiar Faces uses facial recognition and lets users tag neighbors or friends so future alerts identify them by name rather than generic motion.”
I’ve been interested in brand archetypes for years. You’ll recall my first post on the topic, after which I used Kaye Putnam’s quiz to determine my archetypes: primarily Sage, with some others.
Sage, Explorer, Royalty, Entertainer.
This morning I attended a webinar, sponsored by Verizon and under the auspices of SCORE and BizHuub, on the topic of budget-friendly branding. It was presented by Warrick and Takicha Roundtree.
After some preliminary discussions, the Roundtrees focused on the topic of the 12 brand archetypes. They then encouraged us to explore our brand archetypes, with the help of our favorite generative AI tool.
The first prompt, and the response
I am Bredemarket. I offer marketing and writing services (content, proposal, analysis) to identity, biometrics, and technology firms. I sell these services to marketing leaders at these firms. Give me a list of psychographic characteristics of my most likely buyer.
Here is a list of psychographic characteristics of your most likely buyer, the marketing leader at an identity, biometrics, or technology firm. These characteristics go beyond simple demographics and aim to uncover their motivations, challenges, and attitudes.
Core Motivations and Goals
Career-Driven and Results-Oriented: They are primarily motivated by professional success. They need to demonstrate a positive ROI on their marketing budget and show tangible results in the form of lead generation, increased brand awareness, or successful product launches.
Aspirational: They want to be seen as innovative and forward-thinking within their company and the industry. They are looking for solutions that will help them gain a competitive edge and establish their firm as a leader in its field.
Driven by Urgency: They are often facing deadlines and a “need it yesterday” mentality. They have projects to complete, campaigns to launch, and are looking for a reliable partner who can jump in and deliver high-quality work quickly and efficiently.
Seeking Strategic Partnership: While they need a service provider, they are really looking for a partner who can provide fresh, objective insights and strategic thinking. They value an external perspective that isn’t clouded by internal biases or politics.
Challenges and Pain Points
Overwhelmed and Under-Resourced: They are likely managing a lean team and a multitude of responsibilities, from content creation to campaign management and analytics. They may not have the in-house expertise or bandwidth for every project, especially specialized ones like proposal writing or complex analysis.
Need for Specialized Expertise: They are acutely aware that their firm’s technology is complex and niche. They need a writer and marketer who can understand the technical nuances of identity and biometrics and translate them into compelling, clear, and trustworthy content for a B2B audience.
Information and Privacy Concerns: The identity and biometrics space is sensitive. They are concerned with navigating complex issues like data privacy regulations, ethical considerations, and public perception. They need content that addresses these concerns and builds trust with their audience.
Difficulty Demonstrating Value: They struggle to effectively communicate the value of their complex, often-invisible, technology to different stakeholders, from technical users to C-suite executives.
Attitudes and Behaviors
Risk-Averse (to a point): While they want to innovate, they are also responsible for their budget and brand reputation. They will seek out a provider with a proven track record, relevant case studies, and a clear understanding of their industry.
Values Efficiency: They appreciate a streamlined, no-fuss process. They don’t have time for extensive hand-holding or for a provider who needs a lot of training on the basics of their industry.
Prefers a Collaborative Approach: They don’t want to simply hand over a task. They want a partner who will engage in a dialogue, provide strategic recommendations, and work with their team to achieve a shared vision.
Values Trust and Reliability: Given the sensitive nature of their business, they need to feel completely confident that their partner is stable, consistent, and committed to the project. They value a partner who is responsive and transparent in their operations.
The second prompt, and the response
Which of the 12 brand archetypes would appeal to my customers?
Based on the psychographic characteristics of your target customer—the marketing leader at a technology, biometrics, or identity firm—several brand archetypes would likely resonate most strongly.
The key is to choose an archetype that speaks to their professional motivations, pain points, and desire for a strategic, trustworthy partner.
Here are the most relevant archetypes for Bredemarket:
1. The Sage
Why it works: This is the most natural fit. The Sage is the expert, the thought leader, and the trusted advisor. Your customers are seeking knowledge, analysis, and strategic insights. They don’t just want content written; they want content that is well-researched, accurate, and authoritative.
How to embody it:
Focus on data-driven insights and analysis.
Create content that educates and informs, such as white papers, in-depth reports, and industry analysis.
Position yourself as an expert who understands the complex nuances of their industry, not just a content mill.
Your tone should be knowledgeable, wise, and credible.
2. The Creator
Why it works: Your services are inherently creative. You are creating content, proposals, and narratives from scratch. Marketing leaders at tech firms are looking for someone who can translate complex technical information into compelling, engaging stories that resonate with their audience.
How to embody it:
Showcase your ability to build something from nothing—a strong narrative, a winning proposal, or a memorable campaign.
Use a portfolio to highlight diverse, imaginative work you’ve done for other clients.
Emphasize your process, from ideation to final execution.
Your messaging should focus on innovation, originality, and the power of well-crafted communication.
3. The Hero
Why it works: This archetype addresses your customer’s pain points directly. They are heroes within their own companies, tasked with generating leads and demonstrating ROI. You, as Bredemarket, can be their sidekick or a “hero for hire” who helps them conquer their challenges.
How to embody it:
Frame your services as a solution to their problems. Instead of “We write proposals,” say “We write proposals that help you win bids.”
Use success stories and testimonials that highlight how you helped a client overcome a major challenge (e.g., “Helped Company X generate 50% more leads with a new content strategy”).
Your tone should be confident, courageous, and results-oriented.
Secondary, Supporting Archetype: The Ruler
Why it works: While this may not be your primary archetype, it’s a good supporting one. Marketing leaders are often in a position of power and authority. By positioning yourself as a professional and organized partner, you align with their desire for order and control.
How to embody it:
Emphasize your clear processes, reliability, and project management skills.
Communicate with precision and confidence, demonstrating your command of the subject matter and the project.
Show that you bring order to the chaos of their marketing needs.
Summary & Recommendation
For Bredemarket, the Sage and Creator are your strongest primary archetypes.
Sage establishes your expertise and credibility, which is paramount in a technical field.
Creator highlights your specific skill set and ability to build compelling narratives.
You can then use the Hero archetype to frame your marketing messages around the problems you solve, and the Ruler to reassure potential clients about your professionalism and reliability.
By combining these, you can craft a brand identity that is both intelligent and innovative, while also being trustworthy and empowering for your target customer.
What I need to do
So what have I learned from the Roundtrees’ prompts and Google Gemini’s responses?
I need to analyze the rest of the two responses and perhaps make some changes in direction in my self-promotional content. After all, Google never lies.
In truth, why is Google happy that I’m ignoring its marketing advice?
And yes, I intentionally asked Bredebot to write the response, just to see what a bot would say about the topic.
Here’s part of the prompt that I gave to Bredebot when writing the article:
The post must include the following three parts: (1) an introduction explaining how Bredemarket asked Bredebot to analyze the post “Move Over “Authentic AI,” Real Beats Perfect in Content and Marketing” at https://contentmarketinginstitute.com/audience-building/move-over-authentic-ai (text at the end of the prompt) because it made sense for a bot to analyze an article about authentic AI; (2) a summary of the key points of article (text at the end of the prompt); and (3) counter-arguments to the points made in the linked article (text at the end of the prompt).
Bredebot’s criticism of the Content Marketing Institute article
As you’ve seen by now, this was one of Bredebot’s counter-arguments in the third part of the post.
The author says, “Let the people perform. Let the machines cue the spotlight.” I love that line. And I agree completely. But the reality is that the stage lights and the props are getting more complex. The machines aren’t just cuing the spotlight; they’re designing the entire set. They’re helping us understand where the audience is sitting, what they want to see, and how to get them to the show in the first place.
Instead of fighting the technology, we should be leaning into it. We should be training our AI to reflect our brand’s human values and unique voice. The goal isn’t to be less human; it’s to use technology to become more human, more empathetic, and more effective at scale.
Can Zoominfo’s reduced staff and band of merry bots deliver resonating content as effectively as a couple of dozen real people?
Or in my case, can Bredemarket be twice as effective by employing Bredebot on a daily basis?
But let me insert one caveat here.
Bredmarket’s client work is (so far) very human and unchanged
Regarding client work, John E. Bredehoft still ALWAYS writes the first draft. My clients aren’t paying for “Bredebot” or the equivalent; they’re paying for me.
And when I do employ generative AI, I disclose it.
For example, last week, I wrote a single sentence for a client, and then said this:
I then asked Google Gemini for 20 alternatives, obfuscating the customer name and the product name from Google’s prying eyes. Do you prefer any of these formulations to the one I drafted?
Pay particular attention to the obfuscation. Just like 2023, I don’t feed confidential information to my bots.
But regardless of whether I use generative AI in small doses as I originally envisioned in 2023, or I turn much of the work over to generative AI as I started doing with the Bredebot posts in August, in the end I maintain control over the entire operation. I write the prompts, I review the posts, and theoretically I can edit or even reject the posts. (I haven’t yet, just to see what uncontrolled Google Gemini can produce.)
A very human call to action
As I type this, I have not yet turned Bredebot loose on issuing a call to action.
I’m reserving that for myself.
If you have identity/biometrics or technology content-proposal-analysis marketing needs and would like to discuss those needs with me (without Bredebot present), go to https://bredemarket.com/mark/ and schedule a free discussion.
As a wordsmith, it’s interesting to see how slight wording changes can affect…pictures.
Slight alterations in the wording of a Google Gemini prompt can cause dramatic changes in the resulting images. The final picture prompt included words such as “oversaturated” and “grandly.”
Google Gemini imposes severe restrictions against creating pictures of famous figures. You can’t create a picture of President Taylor Swift, for example. But Woody Guthrie is fair game, which is no surprise to anyone who knows of JibJab’s tussle with the Richmond Organization. But I digress.
But what if I uploaded a Wikipedia picture of a famous figure to Google Gemini, asked Gemini to describe it, then had Gemini create a picture based upon its own description?
Unfortunately it doesn’t always perform a perfect recreation, and I bet none of you can figure out the original famous figure depicted here.
The description, excluding her attire:
“The person in the image is a woman with fair skin and light-colored hair, possibly blonde or light brown. Her hair is styled with a slight wave and a side part. She appears to be of a mature age, with some wrinkles visible on her face, particularly around her eyes and mouth. Her eyes are light, likely blue or grey. Her nose is straight and her lips are thin. She has a serious or neutral expression.”
Bredemarket 