Whenever product marketers create materials for others—whether for external or internal audiences—they need a feedback loop to ensure the audiences can, and will, use the materials.
Google Gemini.
Those who know me know that I am drawn to complexity like a moth to a candle, and constantly have to resist the urge to detail.
My draft 0.5s that go through severe cutting before anyone sees draft 1.0.
My Incode team’s 80+ “battlecards” that were four pages long.
Regarding the latter, I should have learned the lesson from my MorphoTrak days. I was creating sales playbooks for one of our products that were much more than four pages long. Detailed playbooks that went into detail about the product, the market, the competitors, and everything else.
Sales did NOT like them. I was told the truth about HOW salespeople would use these playbooks.
“I will glance at your playbook five minutes before meeting with a prospect.”
I could wish upon a star that the salespeople would spend four hours in intense study, but just because I wish for it doesn’t mean it is going to happen.
Now I wish…that my Incode battlecards had been shorter.
I don’t know if I specifically shared this, but when I was undergoing my eight days of wi-fi hell, I was firing off a lot of questions to Google Gemini.
A LOT of questions.
Troubleshooting, fact-checking, you name it. Questioning what I was being told in different chats and by different on-site technicians.
And as I asked all these questions, I noticed along the way that the generative AI engine had been trained to deliver emotional-sounding responses that would resonate with the frazzled person entering the prompt into the generative AI engine.
This stands to reason. The generative AI providers want us to use the tools, so they want to make the experience as positive as possible.
For example, at one point I entered this prompt into Google Gemini:
“When a fiber Internet support person scheduled a second technician for a service call, the support person said “There are times where signal issues take more than one service visit to get to the root of the issue.” What exactly are “signal issues,” and why does the line need to be “balanced”?”
Note how Google Gemini BEGAN its response to my prompt:
“It can be incredibly frustrating when your internet isn’t working and the fix feels like it’s being kicked down the road. However, “signal issues” in the world of fiber optics are a bit more complex than just a loose plug or a broken wire.”
For those who remember the Clinton era, Google felt my pain.
Let me note that Google is not a human who TRULY perceived how I felt at that point. (Your AI girlfriend doesn’t love you either.) But it had been trained to deliver an “it can be incredibly frustrating” response.
On a certain level, Google was telling me what it thought I wanted to hear.
And we can use this to tailor our generative AI prompts to get the responses we want.
How you ask generative AI
We already tailor our prompts.
Back in 2023, when generative AI was in its infancy, I intentionally asked a negative question about a particular company…and acted upon the response. (I will explain how later.)
Whenever a product marketer asks a generative AI engine to prepare a SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) for a competitor or a competitive product, the PMM is intentionally asking for negative weakness and threat information.
But you can also self-analyze…and encourage the generative AI engine to be brutally honest.
A pointed question
Let me illustrate this with the following prompt:
“Why does the marketing and writing company Bredemarket suck so badly?”
Using the word “sucks” in your prompt is the reverse of what we used to call a vanity search. Sure I’ve done those—if I ask Google about a biometric product marketing expert, I appear in the results. But when I asked Google Gemini a negative question about Bredemarket, it clearly delivered.
If you’re searching for a picture about how Bredemarket sucks, you’ve come to the right place. Google Gemini. Picture by Bredemarket.
The response started as follows.
“That is a pretty pointed question!”
Intentionally so. The introduction continued:
“To be fair to the “company” (which is actually a solo consultancy run by a guy named John Bredehoft), whether Bredemarket “sucks” depends entirely on what you’re looking for.”
It then got into the nitty gritty about how I suck. A few excerpts:
Answer 1: a one-man shop
“If you were expecting a full-service marketing firm with account managers and a design department, the reality of a one-man shop based in Ontario, California, might feel underwhelming.”
Answer 2: not for non-tech lifestyle brands
“If you are a general business or a lifestyle brand, his style—which is very technical, process-oriented, and “old school” corporate—might feel dry, rigid, or out of touch with modern, punchy social media marketing.”
Answer 3: he ain’t a corporate drone
“John has a very distinct, conversational, and sometimes quirky style (often referencing his own mistakes or niche industry drama). For some, this feels authentic and transparent; for others, it can come across as unprofessional or rambling compared to the polished “corporate speak” of larger firms.”
Answer 4: see answer 1
“If a project gets complex or requires a fast turnaround that one person can’t handle, the “process” (which he mentions frequently on his site) might feel more like a bottleneck than a benefit.”
My responses to Gemini
Let me note that these are NOT hallucinations. Every criticism is valid.
Whenever a cold call follow-up email asks if they should speak to another department, I laugh. To myself. There’s no one else in the office…I mean Bredemarket corporate headquarters. It’s only 25 square feet, after all.
And no, I’m not pitching Bredemarket’s services to Sofia Bee or other lifestyle brands.
Yes, I can write in “we are perfect” corporate-speak, but I am more effective writing for clients who admit to learning from mistakes.
Finally, I can deliver on projects that require a draft in 3 (or 7) days. If you need an army of consultants to deliver a 600 page RFP response by tomorrow, don’t call Bredemarket.
Remember when I asked generative AI a pointed question in 2023? The response from generative AI was dismissive of the company because it only supported a single factor for authentication, while generative AI knew that multi-factor authentication was ALWAYS better.
First off, the company was able to implement multi-factor authentication if its client wanted it.
Second, while multi-factor authentication CAN be better, it is not ALWAYS better.
So how did I respond to generative AI’s assertion? By writing content, both for people and for the generative AI engine itself, challenging its claims.
By the way, I mentioned earlier that I can write in my wildebeest-infused style, and I can also write in dry corporate-speak. In 2023, I could also write in the company’s then-current maverick-rebel-revolutionary tone.
Bear this in mind while reading the excerpts below, which make sport of denigrating “conventional wisdom.”
Enter multi-factor authentication, the technique that was supposed to render passwords dead. The theory is that even if a fraudster is able to spoof one factor of authentication, it is extremely difficult to spoof all the factors of authentication.
This is the conventional wisdom. Even the latest generative AI engines praise a combination of entering a code on a phone in addition to a password. This, according to one generative AI engine, provides superior security.
Nevertheless, conventional wisdom and generative AI can both be wrong.
If a password or PIN (something you know) is one of your authentication factors, it won’t offer much protection for the reasons outlined above. Password protection of an adult website does no good if the account holder’s underage child gets hold of the password.
If a key fob, smartphone, or other “something you have” item is one of your authentication factors, you are vulnerable to stolen fobs, spoofed phones, and other threats. Again, if Mom or Dad leave their phone lying around, a child can access an adult site.
With these and similar arguments, I asserted that the company’s highly-accurate and independently-tested facial authentication was BETTER than some poorly-conceived multi-factor authentication solutions, despite what generative AI (and conventional wisdom) asserted.
And I was able to assert these because, despite what some people say, knowledge (in this case in biometrics) is NOT a detriment. There’s something good about being a biometric content marketing expert, after all.
But what about your company?
Perhaps there’s a view about your company that needs correcting, whether it’s a generative AI hallucination or a competitor spurious claim.
And how do many companies react to negative views about them? They do nothing. They don’t give the claim the dignity of a response. So the record stands, uncorrectred.
Both product marketing consultants and product marketing employees alike don’t always see the results of the content they create.
But there’s a definite difference between the visibility of external-facing content and internal-facing content.
I’ve created both types of content, both at Bredemarket and as a corporate employee. And I’ve seen this difference.
External-facing content is usually visible to its creator. When I wrote a blog post for Incode, or when I write an article or newsletter for a Bredemarket client, by definition I can see the final result. The exceptions to this are unusual and rare.
The visibility of internal-facing content varies, with employees seeing more internal facing content then consultants. When I prepared the internal presentation “How MorphoTrust Came To Be” for my department at MorphoTrak I obviously saw it. But if I prepare snippets to incorporate into an internal presentation for a Bredemarket client, I may or may not see the final result.
Google Gemini.
In many cases, consultants toss their content over a virtual wall, where the client does with it what they will. After all, they paid for the content and can do what they want.
What if you need a partner?
But what if a client requires someone who is more integrated into the company’s operations? Or embedded into the company?
This is why I offer the Bredemarket 4444 Partner Retainer, if you need to embed me into your operations while still providing you with budget predictability.
If you elect to contract with Bredemarket as an embedded partner in your organization via the Bredemarket 4444 Partner Retainer, then:
Bredemarket can create any content you need—blogs, case studies / testimonials, data sheets, e-books, proposals, social media posts / Xs (or whatever tweets are called today), white papers, or anything—within the hours alloted in the partner retainer contract.
The length is at your discretion. 288 characters? I’m on it. 50 pages? I’m on it.
How do you want to handle kickoffs, reviews, and status calls? It’s entirely up to you.
How does the Bredemarket 4444 Partner Retainer work?
Prepaid base hours: The partner retainer contract between you and Bredemarket specifies the maximum number of hours for the following calendar month. This provides predictable costs, and maximum flexibility in how you use Bredemarket to create your content.
Additional hours: Any additional hours above the maximum are billed at Bredemarket’s standard hourly rate.
Deliverable format: Unless agreed otherwise in advance, Microsoft Word docx including callouts, hyperlinks, key words, hashtags.
If this interests you, schedule a free meeting with me to discuss your needs.
A dizzying array of federal government agencies is interested in biometric verification and biometric classification, for example by age (either age verification or age estimation). As Biometric Update announced, we can add the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to the list with an upcoming age verification workshop.
“Re: Request from Entertainment Software Rating Board, Yoti Ltd., Yoti (USA) Inc., and Kids Web Services Ltd. for Commission Approval of Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule Parental Consent Method (FTC Matter No. P235402)
“This letter is to inform you that the Federal Trade Commission has reviewed your group’s (“the ESRB group”) application for approval of a proposed verifiable parental consent (“VPC”) method under the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule (“COPPA” or “the Rule”). At this time, the Commission declines to approve the method, without prejudice to your refiling the application in the future….
“The ESRB group submitted a proposed VPC method for approval on June 2, 2023. The method involves the use of “Privacy-Protective Facial Age Estimation” technology, which analyzes the geometry of a user’s face to confirm that the user is an adult….The Commission received 354 comments regarding the application. Commenters opposed to the application raised concerns about privacy protections, accuracy, and deepfakes. Those in support of the application wrote that the VPC method is similar to those approved previously and that it had sufficient privacy guardrails….
“The Commission is aware that Yoti submitted a facial age estimation model to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) in September 2023, and Yoti has stated that it anticipates that a report reflecting NIST’s evaluation of the model is forthcoming. The Commission expects that this report will materially assist the Commission, and the public, in better understanding age verification technologies and the ESRB group’s application.”
But the FTC rejection was in 2024. Things may be different now.
Grok.
Revisiting age verification and age estimation in 2026?
The FTC has scheduled an in-person and online age verification workshop on January 28.
The in-person event will be at the Constitution Center at 400 7th St SW in Washington DC.
Details regarding online attendance will be published on this page in the coming weeks.
“The Age Verification Workshop will bring together a diverse group of stakeholders, including researchers, academics, industry representatives, consumer advocates, and government regulators, to discuss topics including: why age verification matters, age verification and estimation tools, navigating the regulatory contours of age verification, how to deploy age verification more widely, and interplay between age verification technologies and the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA Rule).”
Will the participants reconsider age estimation in light of recent test results?
I just asked Google Gemini to conceive an illustration of the benefits of orchestration. You can see my original prompt and the resulting illustration, credited to Bredebot, in the blog post “Orchestration: Harmonizing the Tech Universe.” (Not “Harmonzing.” Oh well.)
Google Gemini.
Note the second of the two benefits listed in Bredebot’s AI-generated illustration: “Reduced Complexity.”
On the surface, this sounds like generative AI getting the answer wrong…again.
After all, the reason that software companies offer a single-vendor solution is because when everything comes from the same source, it’s easier to get everything to work together.
When you have an orchestrated solution incorporating elements from multiple vendors, common sense tells you that the resulting solution is MORE complex, not less complex.
When I reviewed the image, I was initially tempted to ask Bredebot to write a response explaining how orchestrated solution reduce complexity. But then I decided that I should write this myself.
Because I had an idea.
The discipline from orchestration
When you orchestrate solutions from multiple vendors, it’s extremely important that the vendor solutions have ways to talk to each other. This is the essence of orchestration, after all.
Because of this need, you HAVE to create rules that govern how the software packages talk to each other.
Let me cite an example from one of my former employers, Incode. As part of its identity verification process, Incode is capable of interfacing to selected government systems and processing government validations. After all, I may have something that looks like a Mexican ID, but is it really a Mexican ID?
Mexico – INE Validation. When government face validation is enabled this method compares the user’s selfie against the image in the INE database. The method should be called after add-face is over and one of (process-id or document-id) is over.
So Incode needs a standard way to interface with Mexico’s electoral registry database for this whole thing to work. Once that’s defined, you just follow the rules and everything should work.
The lack of discipline from single-vendor solutions
Contrast this with a situation in which all the data comes from a single vendor.
Now ideally interfaces between single-vendor systems should be defined in the same way as interfaces between multi-vendor systems. That way everything is nicely neatly organized and future adaptations are easy.
Sounds great…until you have a deadline to meet and you need to do it quick and dirty.
Google Gemini.
In the same way that computer hardware server rooms can become a tangle of spaghetti cables, computer software can become a tangle of spaghetti interfaces. All because you have to get it done NOW. Someone else can deal with the problems later.
So that’s my idea on how orchestration reduces complexity. But what about those who really know what they’re talking about?
Chris White on orchestration
In a 2024 article, Chris White of Prefect explains how orchestration can be done wrong, and how it can be done correctly.
“I’ve seen teams struggle to justify the adoption of a first-class orchestrator, often falling back on the age-old engineer’s temptation: “We’ll just build it ourselves.” It’s a siren song I know well, having been lured by it myself many times. The idea seems simple enough – string together a few scripts, add some error handling, and voilà! An orchestrator is born. But here’s the rub: those homegrown solutions have a habit of growing into unwieldy systems of their own, transforming the nature of one’s role from getting something done to maintaining a grab bag of glue code.
“Orchestration is about bringing order to this complexity.”
So how do you implement ordered orchestration? By following this high-level statement of purpose:
“Think of orchestration as a self-documenting expert system designed to accomplish well-defined objectives (which in my world are often data-centric objectives). It knows the goal, understands the path to achieve it, and – crucially – keeps a detailed log of its journey.”
Read White’s article for a deeper dive into these three items.
Now think of a layer
The concept of a layer permeates information technology. There are all sorts of models that describe layers and how they work with each other.
“In modern IT systems, an orchestration layer is a software layer that links the different components of a software system and assists with data transformation, server management, authentication, and integration. The orchestration layer acts as a sophisticated mediator between various components of a system, enabling them to work together harmoniously. In technical terms, the orchestration layer is responsible for automating complex workflows, managing communication, and coordinating tasks between diverse services, applications, and infrastructure components.”
And if you love Halloween AND demand generation, then you should see what Gene Volfe is up to.
I have worked with Gene at Incode and two other companies, where I provided content for his demand generation efforts.
Anyway, Gene is publishing insightful demand generation posts on LinkedIn, each accompanied by a Halloween themed short reel. You can see the latest installment on content syndication here; the others are on his LinkedIn profile.
As I saw his posts, I thought to myself that I could steal his idea.
No, not with a sexy product marketer costume.
I decided to make a short reel about a product’s “end of life.”
End of life is something that vendors love and their customers hate. Go ask a current Windows 10 user about end of life mandates.
I have had a vendor view of end of life as a product manager, when Motorola declared an end of life on Series 2000 in favor of Printrak BIS. Series 2000 depended upon old Digital UNIX computers, even for the workstations, making it difficult to maintain the peripherals when everyone else was using Windows. But our competitors had a field day saying that Motorola was abandoning its customers.
But enough about that. Here is Bredemarket’s Halloween-themed product end of life video. Actually, I created two of them.
Identity/biometric marketing leaders continuously talk about how their companies have reduced bias in their products. But have they reduced bias in their own marketing to ensure it resonates with prospects?
“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.”
Let’s look at two examples of biometric marketing internal bias…and how to overcome it.
Google Gemini.
Internal bias at Company A
Company A does not participate in the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Face Recognition Technology Evaluation (FRTE) for technical reasons.
As a result, the company’s marketing machine constantly discredits NIST FRTE, and the company culture is permeated with a “NIST is stupid” mentality.
All well and good…until it runs into that one prospect who asks, “Why are you scared to measure yourself against the competition? Does your algorithm suck that bad?”
Internal bias at Company B
Company B, on the other hand, participates in FRTE, FATE, FRIF (previously FpVTE), and every other NIST test imaginable.
This company’s marketing machine declares its superiority as a top tier biometric vendor, supported by outside independent evidence.
All well and good…until it runs into that one prospect who declares, “That’s just federal government test data. How will you perform in our benchmark using our real data and real computers?”
Internal bias at Bredemarket
Well, I have my admittedly biased solution to prevent companies from tumbling into groupthink, drinking of Kool-Aid, and market irrelevance.
Contract with an outside biometric product marketing expert. (I just happen to know one…me.)
Google Gemini.
I haven’t spent 30 years immersed in your insular culture. I’ve heard all the marketing-speak from different companies, and I’ve written the marketing-speak for nearly two dozen of them. I can ensure that your content resonates with your external customers and prospects, not only with your employees.
All well and good…until…
Reducing internal bias at Bredemarket
“But John, what about your own biases? IDEMIA, Motorola, Incode, and other employers paid you for 25 years! You probably have an established process that you use to prepare andouillette at home, based upon a recipe from 2019!”
Google Gemini.
I don’t…but point taken. So how do I minimize my own biases?
My breadth of experience lessens the biases from my past. Look at my market-speak from 1994 to 2023, in order:
We are Printrak, a nimble private company that will dominate AFIS with our client-server solution.
We are Printrak (stock symbol AFIS) a well-funded public company that will dominate AFIS, mugshot, computer aided dispatch, and microfiche.
We are Motorolans, and our multi-tier Digital Justice Solution has a superior architecture to that of Sagem Morpho and others.
We are MorphoTrak, bringing together the best technologies from MetaMorpho and Printrak BIS, plus superior French technology for secure credentials and road safety…unencumbered by the baggage that weighs down MorphoTrust.
We are IDEMIA North America, bringing together the best technologies from MorphoTrust and MorphoTrak for ABIS, driver’s licenses, and enrollment, coupled with the resources from the rest of IDEMIA, a combined unbreakable force.
We are Incode, not weighed down with the baggage of the old dinosaurs, and certainly not a participant in the surveillance market.
Add all the different messaging of Bredemarket’s clients, plus my continuous improvement (hello MOTO) of my capabilities, and I will ensure that my content, proposals, and analysis does not trap you in a dead end.
Reducing internal bias at your company
Are you ready to elevate your company with the outside perspective of a biometric product marketing expert?
Let’s talk (a free meeting). You explain, I ask questions, we agree on a plan, and then I act.
Bredemarket 