Basically, the difference between “recognition” and “analysis” in this context is that recognition identifies an individual, while analysis identifies a characteristic of an individual….The age of a person is another example of analysis. In and of itself an age cannot identify an individual, since around 385,000 people are born every day. Even with lower birth rates when YOU were born, there are tens or hundreds of thousands of people who share your birthday.
Normal people look forward to the latest album or movie. A biometric product marketing expert instead looks forward to an inaugural test report from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on age estimation and verification using faces.
I’ve been waiting for this report for months now (since I initially mentioned it in July 2023), and in April NIST announced it would be available in the next few weeks.
NIST news release
Yesterday I learned of the report’s public availability via a NIST news release.
A new study from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) evaluates the performance of software that estimates a person’s age based on the physical characteristics evident in a photo of their face. Such age estimation and verification (AEV) software might be used as a gatekeeper for activities that have an age restriction, such as purchasing alcohol or accessing mature content online….
The new study is NIST’s first foray into AEV evaluation in a decade and kicks off a new, long-term effort by the agency to perform frequent, regular tests of the technology. NIST last evaluated AEV software in 2014….
(The new test) asked the algorithms to specify whether the person in the photo was over the age of 21.
Well, sort of. We’ll get to that later.
Current AEV results
I was in the middle of a client project on Thursday and didn’t have time to read the detailed report, but I did have a second to look at the current results. Like other ongoing tests, NIST will update the age estimation and verification (AEV) results as these six vendors (and others) submit new algorithms.
Why does NIST test age estmation, or anything else?
The Information Technology Laboratory and its Information Access Division
NIST campus, Gaithersburg MD. From https://www.nist.gov/ofpm/historic-preservation-nist/gaithersburg-campus. I visited it once, when Safran’s acquisition of Motorola’s biometric business was awaiting government approval. I may or may not have spoken to a Sagem Morpho employee at this meeting, even though I wasn’t supposed to in case the deal fell through.
One of NIST’s six research laboratories is its Information Technology Laboratory (ITL), charged “to cultivate trust in information technology (IT) and metrology.” Since NIST is part of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Americans (and others) who rely on information technology need an unbiased source on the accuracy and validity of this technology. NIST cultivates trust by a myriad of independent tests.
Some of those tests are carried out by one of ITL’s six divisions, the Information Access Division (IAD). This division focuses on “human action, behavior, characteristics and communication.”
The difference between FRTE and FATE
While there is a lot of IAD “characteristics” work that excites biometric folks, including ANSI/NIST standard work, contactless fingerprint capture, the Fingerprint Vendor Technology Evaluation (ugh), and other topics, we’re going to focus on our new favorite acronyms, FRTE (Face Recognition Technology Evaluation) and FATE (Face Analysis Technology Evaluation). If these acronyms are new to you, I talked about them last August (and the deprecation of the old FRVT acronym).
Basically, the difference between “recognition” and “analysis” in this context is that recognition identifies an individual, while analysis identifies a characteristic of an individual. So the infamous “Gender Shades” study, which tested the performance of three algorithms in identifying people’s sex and race, is an example of analysis.
Age analysis
The age of a person is another example of analysis. In and of itself an age cannot identify an individual, since around 385,000 people are born every day. Even with lower birth rates when YOU were born, there are tens or hundreds of thousands of people who share your birthday.
They say it’s your birthday. It’s my birthday too, yeah. From https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkZ9sT-z13I. Paul’s original band never filmed a promotional video for this song.
And your age matters in the situations I mentioned above. Even when marijuana is legal in your state, you can’t sell it to a four year old. And that four year old can’t (or shouldn’t) sign up for Facebook either.
You can check a person’s ID, but that takes time and only works when a person has an ID. The only IDs that a four year old has are their passport (for the few who have one) and their birth certificate (which is non-standard from county to county and thus difficult to verify). And not even all adults have IDs, especially in third world countries.
Self-testing
So companies like Yoti developed age estimation solutions that didn’t rely on government-issued identity documents. The companies tested their performance and accuracy themselves (see the PDF of Yoti’s March 2023 white paper here). However, there are two drawbacks to this:
While I am certain that Yoti wouldn’t pull any shenanigans, results from a self-test always engender doubt. Is the tester truly honest about its testing? Does it (intentionally or unintentionally) gloss over things that should be tested? After all, the purpose of a white paper is for a vendor to present facts that lead a prospect to buy a vendor’s solution.
Even with Yoti’s self tests, it did not have the ability (or the legal permission) to test the accuracy of its age estimation competitors.
How NIST tests age estimation
Enter NIST, where the scientists took a break from meterological testing or whatever to conduct an independent test. NIST asked vendors to participate in a test in which NIST personnel would run the test on NIST’s computers, using NIST’s data. This prevented the vendors from skewing the results; they handed their algorithms to NIST and waited several months for NIST to tell them how they did.
I won’t go into it here, but it’s worth noting that a NIST test is just a test, and test results may not be the same when you implement a vendor’s age estimation solution on CUSTOMER computers with CUSTOMER data.
The NIST internal report I awaited
NOW let’s turn to the actual report, NIST IR 8525 “Face Analysis Technology Evaluation: Age Estimation and Verification.”
NIST needed a set of common data to test the vendor algorithms, so it used “around eleven million photos drawn from four operational repositories: immigration visas, arrest mugshots, border crossings, and immigration office photos.” (These were provided by the U.S. Departments of Homeland Security and Justice.) All of these photos include the actual ages of the persons (although mugshots only include the year of birth, not the date of birth), and some include sex and country-of-birth information.
For each algorithm and each dataset, NIST recorded the mean absolute error (MAE), which is the mean number of years between the algorithm’s estimate age and the actual age. NIST also recorded other error measurements, and for certain tests (such as a test of whether or not a person is 17 years old) the false positive rate (FPR).
The challenge with the methodology
Many of the tests used a “Challenge-T” policy, such as “Challenge 25.” In other words, the test doesn’t estimate whether a person IS a particular age, but whether a person is WELL ABOVE a particular age. Here’s how NIST describes it:
For restricted-age applications such as alcohol purchase, a Challenge-T policy accepts people with age estimated at or above T but requires additional age assurance checks on anyone assessed to have age below T.
So if you have to be 21 to access a good or service, the algorithm doesn’t estimate if you are over 21. Instead, it estimates whether you are over 25. If the algorithm thinks you’re over 25, you’re good to go. If it thinks you’re 24, pull out your ID card.
And if you want to be more accurate, raise the challenge age from 25 to 28.
NIST admits that this procedure results in a “tradeoff between protecting young people and inconveniencing older subjects” (where “older” is someone who is above the legal age but below the challenge age).
NIST also performed a variety of demographic tests that I won’t go into here.
What the NIST age estimation test says
OK, forget about all that. Let’s dig into the results.
So depending upon the test, the best age estimation vendor (based upon accuracy and or resource usage) may be Dermalog, or Incode, or ROC (formerly Rank One Computing), or Unissey, or Yoti. Just look for that “(1)” superscript.
You read that right. Out of the 6 vendors, 5 are the best. And if you massage the data enough you can probably argue that Neurotechnology is the best also.
So if I were writing for one of these vendors, I’d argue that the vendor placed first in Subtest X, Subtest X is obviously the most important one in the entire test, and all the other ones are meaningless.
But the truth is what NIST said in its news release: there is no single standout algorithm. Different algorithms perform better based upon the sex or national origin of the people. Again, you can read the report for detailed results here.
What the report didn’t measure
NIST always clarifies what it did and didn’t test. In addition to the aforementioned caveat that this was a test environment that will differ from your operational environment, NIST provided some other comments.
The report excludes performance measured in interactive sessions, in which a person can cooperatively present and re-present to a camera. It does not measure accuracy effects related to disguises, cosmetics, or other presentation attacks. It does not address policy nor recommend AV thresholds as these differ across applications and jurisdictions.
Of course NIST is just starting this study, and could address some of these things in later studies. For example, its ongoing facial recognition accuracy tests never looked at the use case of people wearing masks until after COVID arrived and that test suddenly became important.
What about 22 year olds?
As noted above, the test used a Challenge 25 or Challenge 28 model which measured whether a person who needed to be 21 appeared to be 25 or 28 years old. This makes sense when current age estimation technology measures MAE in years, not days. NIST calculated the “inconvenience” to 21-25 (or 28) year olds affected by this method.
While a lot of attention is paid to the use cases for 21 year olds (buying booze) and 18 year olds (viewing porn), states and localities have also paid a lot of attention to the use cases for 13 year olds (signing up for social media). In fact, some legislators are less concerned about a 20 year old buying a beer than a 12 year old receiving text messages from a Meta user.
NIST tests for these in the “child online safety” tests, particularly these two:
Age < 13 – False Positive Rates (FPR) are proportions of subjects aged below 13 but whose age is estimated from 13 to 16 (below 17).
Age ≥ 17 – False Positive Rates (FPR) are proportions of subjects aged 17 or older but whose age is estimated from 13 to 16.
However, the visa database is the only one that includes data of individuals with actual ages below age 13. The youngest ages in the other datasets are 14, or 18, or even 21, rendering them useless for the child online safety tests.
Why NIST researchers are great researchers
The mark of a great researcher is their ability to continue to get funding for their research, which is why so many scientific papers conclude with the statement “further study is needed.”
Here’s how NIST stated it:
Future work: The FATE AEV evaluation remains open, so we will continue to evaluate and report on newly submitted prototypes. In future reports we will: evaluate performance of implementations that can exploit having a prior known-age reference photo of a subject (see our API); consider whether video clips afford improved accuracy over still photographs; and extend demographic and quality analyses.
Translation: if Congress doesn’t continue to give NIST money, then high school students will get drunk or high, young teens will view porn, and kids will encounter fraudsters on Facebook. It’s up to you, Congress.
When marketing your facial recognition product (or any product), you need to pay attention to your positioning and messaging. This includes developing the answers to why, how, and what questions. But your positioning and your resulting messaging are deeply influenced by the characteristics of your product.
If facial recognition is your only modality
There are hundreds of facial recognition products on the market that are used for identity verification, authentication, crime solving (but ONLY as an investigative lead), and other purposes.
Some of these solutions ONLY use face as a biometric modality. Others use additional biometric modalities.
Similarly, a face-only company will argue that facial recognition is a very fast, very secure, and completely frictionless method of verification and authentication. When opponents bring up the demonstrated spoofs against faces, you will argue that your iBeta-conformant presentation attack detection methodology guards against such spoofing attempts.
Of course, if you initially only offer a face solution and then offer a second biometric, you’ll have to rewrite all your material. “You know how we said that face is great? Well, face and gait are even greater!”
It seems that many of the people that are waiting the long-delayed death of the password think that biometrics is the magic solution that will completely replace passwords.
For this reason, your company might have decided to use biometrics as your sole factor of identity verification and authentication.
Or perhaps your company took a different approach, and believes that multiple factors—perhaps all five factors—are required to truly verify and/or authenticate an individual. Use some combination of biometrics, secure documents such as driver’s licenses, geolocation, “something you do” such as a particular swiping pattern, and even (horrors!) knowledge-based authentication such as passwords or PINs.
This naturally shapes your positioning and messaging.
The single factor companies will argue that their approach is very fast, very secure, and completely frictionless. (Sound familiar?) No need to drag out your passport or your key fob, or to turn off your VPN to accurately indicate your location. Biometrics does it all!
The multiple factor companies will argue that ANY single factor can be spoofed, but that it is much, much harder to spoof multiple factors at once. (Sound familiar?)
So position yourself however you need to position yourself. Again, be prepared to change if your single factor solution adopts a second factor.
A final thought
Every company has its own way of approaching a problem, and your company is no different. As you prepare to market your products, survey your product, your customers, and your prospects and choose the correct positioning (and messaging) for your own circumstances.
And if you need help with biometric positioning and messaging, feel free to contact the biometric product marketing expert, John E. Bredehoft. (Full-time employment opportunities via LinkedIn, consulting opportunities via Bredemarket.)
In the meantime, take care of yourself, and each other.
If you’re a biometric product marketing expert, or even if you’re not, you’re presumably analyzing the possible effects to your identity/biometric product from the proposed changes to the Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA).
As of May 16, the Illinois General Assembly (House and Senate) passed a bill (SB2979) to amend BIPA. It awaits the Governor’s signature.
What is the amendment? Other than defining an “electronic signature,” the main purpose of the bill is to limit damages under BIPA. The new text regarding the “Right of action” codifies the concept of a “single violation.”
(T)he amended law DOES NOT CHANGE “Private Right of Action” so BIPA LIVES!
Companies who violate the strict requirements of BIPA aren’t off the hook. It’s just that the trial lawyers—whoops, I mean the affected consumers make a lot less money.
Checking the purported identity against private databases, such as credit records.
Checking the person’s driver’s license or other government document to ensure it’s real and not a fake.
Checking the purported identity against government databases, such as driver’s license databases. (What if the person presents a real driver’s license, but that license was subsequently revoked?)
Perform a “who you are” biometric test against the purported identity.
If you conduct all four tests, then you have used multiple factors of authentication to confirm that the person is who they say they are. If the identity is synthetic, chances are the purported person will fail at least one of these tests.
Do you fight synthetic identity fraud?
If you fight synthetic identity fraud, you should let people know about your solution.
AAL1 (some confidence). AAL1, in the words of NIST, “provides some assurance.” Single-factor authentication is OK, but multi-factor authentication can be used also. All sorts of authentication methods, including knowledge-based authentication, satisfy the requirements of AAL1. In short, AAL1 isn’t exactly a “nothingburger” as I characterized IAL1, but AAL1 doesn’t provide a ton of assurance.
AAL2 (high confidence). AAL2 increases the assurance by requiring “two distinct authentication factors,” not just one. There are specific requirements regarding the authentication factors you can use. And the security must conform to the “moderate” security level, such as the moderate security level in FedRAMP. So AAL2 is satisfactory for a lot of organizations…but not all of them.
AAL3 (very high confidence). AAL3 is the highest authenticator assurance level. It “is based on proof of possession of a key through a cryptographic protocol.” Of course, two distinct authentication factors are required, including “a hardware-based authenticator and an authenticator that provides verifier impersonation resistance — the same device MAY fulfill both these requirements.”
This is of course a very high overview, and there are a lot of…um…minutiae that go into each of these definitions. If you’re interested in that further detail, please read section 4 of NIST Special Publication 800-63B for yourself.
Which authenticator assurance level should you use?
NIST has provided a handy dandy AAL decision flowchart in section 6.2 of NIST Special Publication 800-63-3, similar to the IAL decision flowchart in section 6.1 that I reproduced earlier. If you go through the flowchart, you can decide whether you need AAL1, AAL2, or the very high AAL3.
One of the key questions is the question flagged as 2, “Are you making personal data accessible?” The answer to this question in the flowchart moves you between AAL2 (if personal data is made accessible) and AAL1 (if it isn’t).
So what?
Do the different authenticator assurance levels provide any true benefits, or are they just items in a government agency’s technical check-off list?
Perhaps the better question to ask is this: what happens if the WRONG person obtains access to the data?
Could the fraudster cause financial loss to a government agency?
Threaten personal safety?
Commit civil or criminal violations?
Or, most frightening to agency heads who could be fired at any time, could the fraudster damage an agency’s reputation?
If some or all of these are true, then a high authenticator assurance level is VERY beneficial.
The Prism Project’s home page at https://www.the-prism-project.com/, illustrating the Biometric Digital Identity Prism as of March 2024. From Acuity Market Intelligence and FindBiometrics.
With over 100 firms in the biometric industry, their offerings are going to naturally differ—even if all the firms are TRYING to copy each other and offer “me too” solutions.
I’ve worked for over a dozen biometric firms as an employee or independent contractor, and I’ve analyzed over 80 biometric firms in competitive intelligence exercises, so I’m well aware of the vast implementation differences between the biometric offerings.
Some of the implementation differences provoke vehement disagreements between biometric firms regarding which choice is correct. Yes, we FIGHT.
Let’s look at three (out of many) of these implementation differences and see how they affect YOUR company’s content marketing efforts—whether you’re engaging in identity blog post writing, or some other content marketing activity.
The three biometric implementation choices
Firms that develop biometric solutions make (or should make) the following choices when implementing their solutions.
Presentation attack detection. Assuming the solution incorporates presentation attack detection (liveness detection), or a way of detecting whether the presented biometric is real or a spoof, the firm must decide whether to use active or passive liveness detection.
Age assurance. When choosing age assurance solutions that determine whether a person is old enough to access a product or service, the firm must decide whether or not age estimation is acceptable.
Biometric modality. Finally, the firm must choose which biometric modalities to support. While there are a number of modality wars involving all the biometric modalities, this post is going to limit itself to the question of whether or not voice biometrics are acceptable.
I will address each of these questions in turn, highlighting the pros and cons of each implementation choice. After that, we’ll see how this affects your firm’s content marketing.
(I)nstead of capturing a true biometric from a person, the biometric sensor is fooled into capturing a fake biometric: an artificial finger, a face with a mask on it, or a face on a video screen (rather than a face of a live person).
This tomfoolery is called a “presentation attack” (becuase you’re attacking security with a fake presentation).
And an organization called iBeta is one of the testing facilities authorized to test in accordance with the standard and to determine whether a biometric reader can detect the “liveness” of a biometric sample.
(Friends, I’m not going to get into passive liveness and active liveness. That’s best saved for another day.)
Now I could cite a firm using active liveness detection to say why it’s great, or I could cite a firm using passive liveness detection to say why it’s great. But perhaps the most balanced assessment comes from facia, which offers both types of liveness detection. How does facia define the two types of liveness detection?
Active liveness detection, as the name suggests, requires some sort of activity from the user. If a system is unable to detect liveness, it will ask the user to perform some specific actions such as nodding, blinking or any other facial movement. This allows the system to detect natural movements and separate it from a system trying to mimic a human being….
Passive liveness detection operates discreetly in the background, requiring no explicit action from the user. The system’s artificial intelligence continuously analyses facial movements, depth, texture, and other biometric indicators to detect an individual’s liveness.
Pros and cons
Briefly, the pros and cons of the two methods are as follows:
While active liveness detection offers robust protection, requires clear consent, and acts as a deterrent, it is hard to use, complex, and slow.
Passive liveness detection offers an enhanced user experience via ease of use and speed and is easier to integrate with other solutions, but it incorporates privacy concerns (passive liveness detection can be implemented without the user’s knowledge) and may not be used in high-risk situations.
So in truth the choice is up to each firm. I’ve worked with firms that used both liveness detection methods, and while I’ve spent most of my time with passive implementations, the active ones can work also.
A perfect wishy-washy statement that will get BOTH sides angry at me. (Except perhaps for companies like facia that use both.)
If you need to know a person’s age, you can ask them. Because people never lie.
Well, maybe they do. There are two better age assurance methods:
Age verification, where you obtain a person’s government-issued identity document with a confirmed birthdate, confirm that the identity document truly belongs to the person, and then simply check the date of birth on the identity document and determine whether the person is old enough to access the product or service.
Age estimation, where you don’t use a government-issued identity document and instead examine the face and estimate the person’s age.
I changed my mind on age estimation
I’ve gone back and forth on this. As I previously mentioned, my employment history includes time with a firm produces driver’s licenses for the majority of U.S. states. And back when that firm was providing my paycheck, I was financially incentivized to champion age verification based upon the driver’s licenses that my company (or occasionally some inferior company) produced.
But as age assurance applications moved into other areas such as social media use, a problem occurred since 13 year olds usually don’t have government IDs. A few of them may have passports or other government IDs, but none of them have driver’s licenses.
But does age estimation work? I’m not sure if ANYONE has posted a non-biased view, so I’ll try to do so myself.
The pros of age estimation include its applicability to all ages including young people, its protection of privacy since it requires no information about the individual identity, and its ease of use since you don’t have to dig for your physical driver’s license or your mobile driver’s license—your face is already there.
The huge con of age estimation is that it is by definition an estimate. If I show a bartender my driver’s license before buying a beer, they will know whether I am 20 years and 364 days old and ineligible to purchase alcohol, or whether I am 21 years and 0 days old and eligible. Estimates aren’t that precise.
Fingerprints, palm prints, faces, irises, and everything up to gait. (And behavioral biometrics.) There are a lot of biometric modalities out there, and one that has been around for years is the voice biometric.
I’ve discussed this topic before, and the partial title of the post (“We’ll Survive Voice Spoofing”) gives away how I feel about the matter, but I’ll present both sides of the issue.
No one can deny that voice spoofing exists and is effective, but many of the examples cited by the popular press are cases in which a HUMAN (rather than an ALGORITHM) was fooled by a deepfake voice. But voice recognition software can also be fooled.
Take a study from the University of Waterloo, summarized here, that proclaims: “Computer scientists at the University of Waterloo have discovered a method of attack that can successfully bypass voice authentication security systems with up to a 99% success rate after only six tries.”
If you re-read that sentence, you will notice that it includes the words “up to.” Those words are significant if you actually read the article.
In a recent test against Amazon Connect’s voice authentication system, they achieved a 10 per cent success rate in one four-second attack, with this rate rising to over 40 per cent in less than thirty seconds. With some of the less sophisticated voice authentication systems they targeted, they achieved a 99 per cent success rate after six attempts.
Other voice spoofing studies
Similar to Gender Shades, the University of Waterloo study does not appear to have tested hundreds of voice recognition algorithms. But there are other studies.
The 2021 NIST Speaker Recognition Evaluation (PDF here) tested results from 15 teams, but this test was not specific to spoofing.
A test that was specific to spoofing was the ASVspoof 2021 test with 54 team participants, but the ASVspoof 2021 results are only accessible in abstract form, with no detailed results.
Another test, this one with results, is the SASV2022 challenge, with 23 valid submissions. Here are the top 10 performers and their error rates.
You’ll note that the top performers don’t have error rates anywhere near the University of Waterloo’s 99 percent.
So some firms will argue that voice recognition can be spoofed and thus cannot be trusted, while other firms will argue that the best voice recognition algorithms are rarely fooled.
What does this mean for your company?
Obviously, different firms are going to respond to the three questions above in different ways.
For example, a firm that offers face biometrics but not voice biometrics will convey how voice is not a secure modality due to the ease of spoofing. “Do you want to lose tens of millions of dollars?”
A firm that offers voice biometrics but not face biometrics will emphasize its spoof detection capabilities (and cast shade on face spoofing). “We tested our algorithm against that voice fake that was in the news, and we detected the voice as a deepfake!”
There is no universal truth here, and the message your firm conveys depends upon your firm’s unique characteristics.
And those characteristics can change.
Once when I was working for a client, this firm had made a particular choice with one of these three questions. Therefore, when I was writing for the client, I wrote in a way that argued the client’s position.
After I stopped working for this particular client, the client’s position changed and the firm adopted the opposite view of the question.
Therefore I had to message the client and say, “Hey, remember that piece I wrote for you that said this? Well, you’d better edit it, now that you’ve changed your mind on the question…”
Bear this in mind as you create your blog, white paper, case study, or other identity/biometric content, or have someone like the biometric content marketing expert Bredemarket work with you to create your content. There are people who sincerely hold the opposite belief of your firm…but your firm needs to argue that those people are, um, misinformed.
I’m going to describe one example of how Bredemarket has helped its customers, based upon one of my client projects from several years ago.
Stupid Word Tricks. Tell your brother, your sister and your mama too. See below.
I’ve told this story before, but I wanted to take a fresh look at the problem the firm had, and the solution Bredemarket provided. I’m not identifying the firm, but perhaps YOUR firm has a similar problem that I can solve for you. And your firm is the one that matters.
The problem
This happened several years ago, but was one of Bredemarket’s first successes.
The firm that asked for my help is one that focuses on one particular biometric modality, and provides a high-end solution for biometric identification.
In addition, the firm’s solution has multiple applications, crime solving and disaster victim identification being two of them.
The firm needed a way to perform initial prospect outreach via budgetary quotations, targeted to the application that mattered to the prospect. A simple proposal problem to be solved…or so it seemed.
Why the obvious proposal solution didn’t work
I had encountered similar problems while employed at Printrak and MorphoTrak and while consulting here at Bredemarket, so the solution was painfully obvious.
Qvidian, one proposal automation software package that I have used. But there are a LOT of proposal automation software packages out there, including some new ones that incorporate artificial intelligence. From https://uplandsoftware.com/qvidian/.
Have your proposal writers create relevant material in their proposal automation software that could target each of the audiences.
So when your salesperson wants to approach a medical examiner involved in disaster victim identification, the proposal writer could just run the proposal automation software, create the targeted budgetary quotation, populate it with the prospect’s contact information, and give the completed quotation to the salesperson.
Unfortuntely for the firm, the painfully obvious solution was truly painful, for two reasons:
This firm had no proposal automation software. Well, maybe some other division of the firm had such software, but this division didn’t have access to it. So the whole idea of adding proposal text to an existing software solution, and programming the solution to generate the appropriate budgetary quotation, wasn’t going to fly.
In addition, this firm had no proposal writers. The salespeople were doing this on their own. The only proposal writer they had was the contractor from Bredemarket. And they weren’t going to want to pay for me to generate every budgetary quotation they needed.
In this case, the firm needed a way for the salespeople to generate the necessary budgetary quotations as easily as possible, WITHOUT relying on proposal automation software or proposal writers.
Bredemarket’s solution
To solve the firm’s problem, I resorted to Stupid Word Tricks.
I created two similar budgetary quotation templates: one for crime solving, and one for disaster victim identification. (Actually I created more than two.) That way the salesperson could simply choose the budgetary quotation they wanted.
The letters were similar in format, but had little tweaks depending upon the audience.
Using document properties to create easy-to-use budgetary quotations.
The Stupid Word Tricks came into play when I used Word document property features to allow the salesperson to enter the specific information for each prospect, which then rippled throughout the document, providing a customized budgetary quotation to the prospect.
The result
The firms’ salespeople used Bredemarket’s templates to generate initial outreach budgetary quotations to their clients.
And the salespeople were happy.
I’ve used this testimonial quote before, but it doesn’t hurt to use it again.
“I just wanted to truly say thank you for putting these templates together. I worked on this…last week and it was extremely simple to use and I thought really provided a professional advantage and tool to give the customer….TRULY THANK YOU!”
Comment from one of the client’s employees who used the standard proposal text
While I actively consulted for the firm I maintained the templates, updating as needed as the firm achieved additional certifications.
Why am I telling this story again?
I just want to remind people that Bredemarket doesn’t just write posts, articles, and other collateral. I can also create collateral such as these proposal templates that you can re-use.
The identity/biometric company never formally learned how its references to renamed companies and non-existent companies were repelling those very companies…and the prospects who knew the website information was inaccurate.
It could have learned…if it had met with me. But it chose not to do so.
NOTE TO SELF: INSERT STRONG FEAR UNCERTAINTY AND DOUBT PARAGRAPH HERE. TAKE OUT THESE TWO SENTENCES BEFORE POSTING THE FINAL VERSION!!!
(By the way…while the identity/biometric company never received this information formally, it did receive it informally…because such information is presumably critically important to the company.)
How many other companies are in the same situation, with:
My mini-survey shows that of the 40+ identity firms with blogs, about one-third of them HAVEN’T SAID A SINGLE THING to their prospects and customers in the last two months.
Is there a 29-year veteran of the identity industry, an identity content marketing expert who can help the companies fix these gaps?
The so-called experts say that a piece of content should only have one topic and one call to action. Well, it’s Sunday so hopefully the so-called experts are taking a break and will never see the paragraphs below.
This is my endorsement for Cultivated Cool. Its URL is https://cultivated.cool/, which I hope you can remember.
Cultivated Cool self-identifies as “(y)our weekly guide to the newest, coolest products you didn’t know you needed.” Concentrating on the direct-to-consumer (DTC or D2C) space, Cultivated Cool works with companies to “transform (their) email marketing from a chore into a revenue generator.” And to prove the effectiveness of email, it offers its own weekly email that highlights various eye-catching products. But not trendy ones:
Trends come and go but cool never goes out of style.
Bredemarket isn’t a prospect for Cultivated Cool’s first service—my written content creation is not continuously cool. (Although it’s definitely not trendy either). But I am a consumer of Cultivated Cool’s weekly emails, and you should subscribe to its weekly emails also. Enter your email and click the “Subscribe” button on Cultivated Cool’s webpage.
And Cultivated Cool’s weekly emails lead me to the point of this post.
The day that Stella sculpted air
Today’s weekly newsletter issue from Cultivated Cool is entitled “Dig It.” But this has nothing to do with the Beatles or with Abba. Instead it has to do with gardening, and the issue tells the story of Stella, in five parts. The first part is entitled “Snip it in the Bud,” and begins as follows.
Stella felt a shiver go down her spine the first time the pruner blades closed. She wasn’t just cutting branches; she was sculpting air.
The pruner blades featured in Cultivated Cool are sold by Niwaki, an English company that offers Japanese-inspired products. As I type this, Niwaki offers 18 different types of secateurs (pruning shears), including large hand, small hand, right-handed, and left-handed varieties. You won’t get these at your dollar store; prices (excluding VAT) range from US$45.50 to US$280.50 (Tobisho Hiryu Secateurs).
But regardless of price, all the secateurs sold by Niwaki have one thing in common: an age restriction on purchases. Not that Niwaki truly enforces this restriction.
Please note: By law, we are not permitted to sell a knife or blade to any person under the age of 18. By placing an order for one of these items you are declaring that you are 18 years of age or over. These items must be used responsibly and appropriately.
I hope you’re sitting down as I reveal this to you: underage people can bypass the age assurance scheme on alcohol websites by inputting any year of birth that they wish. Just like anyone, even a small child, can make any declaration of age that they want, as long as their credit card is valid.
Now I have no idea whether Ofcom’s UK Online Safety Act consultations will eventually govern Niwaki’s sales of adult-controlled physical products. But if Niwaki finds itself under the UK Online Safety Act, or some other act in the United Kingdom or any country where Niwaki conducts business, then a simple assurance that the purchaser is old enough to buy “a knife or blade” will not be sufficient.
Niwaki’s website would then need to adopt some form of age assurance for purchasers, either by using a government-issued identification document (age verification) or examining the face to algorithmically surmise the customer’s age (age estimation).
Age verification. For example, the purchaser would need to provide their government-issued identity document so that the seller can verify the purchaser’s age. Ideally, this would be coupled with live face capture so that the seller can compare the live face to the face on the ID, ensuring that a kid didn’t steal mommy’s or daddy’s driver’s license (licence) or passport.
Age estimation. For example, the purchaser would need to provide their live face so that the seller can estimate the purchaser’s age. In this case (and in the age verification case if a live face is captured), the seller would need to use liveness dectection to ensure that the face is truly a live face and is not a presentation attack or other deepfake.
And then the seller would need to explain why it was doing all of this.
How can a company explain its age assurance solution in a way that its prospects will understand…and how can the company reassure its prospects that its age assurance method protects their privacy?
Companies other than identity companies must explain their identity solutions
Which brings me to the TRUE call to action in this post. (Sorry Mark and Lindsey. You’re still cool.)
I’ve stated ad nauseum that identity companies need to explain their identity solutions: why they developed them, how they work, what they do, and several other things.
In the same way, firms that incorporate solutions from identity companies got some splainin’ to do.
This applies to a financial institution that requires customers to use an identity verification solution before opening an account, just like it applies to an online gardening implement website that uses an age assurance method to check the age of pruning shear purchasers.
So how can such companies explain their identity and biometrics features in a way their end customers can understand?
Bredemarket 