Identity/biometrics/technology marketing and writing services
I just posted the latest edition of my LinkedIn newsletter, “The Wildebeest Speaks.” It examines the history of deepfakes / likenesses, including the Émile Cohl animated cartoon Fantasmagorie, my own deepfake / likeness creations, and the deepfake / likeness of Sam Altman committing a burglary, authorized by Altman himself. Unfortunately, some deepfakes are NOT authorized, and that’s a problem.
Read my article here: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-truth-bredemarket-jetmc/
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.
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.
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.
I, or rather my AI assistant, performed all of this well within my self-imposed 5-minute time frame.
Once this was done, I created an email straight from Google Gemini, and sent this information to my client…
…including the prompt I used, and ALL the language that Google Gemini provided in its response.
Now some argue that I’m shooting myself in the foot by disclosing my use of generative AI to answer the second part of my client’s question.
They would claim that I should have just
Don’t do that.
Deloitte did that…and paid for it in the long run.
“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.
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.
The closest ring to the planet is the Bredemarket mailing list (MailChimp).
The next closest ring is the Bredemarket website (WordPress).
Moving outward, we find the following rings:
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…
A supposed recruiter on LinkedIn with 2 names (Adriana, and Linda) and only 2 connections (whoops, now 3) tried to scam a friend of mine.
But my friend smelled a rat.
Another employment scammer.
Know your recruiter!
(Hiring rat picture from Imagen 4)
I’ve written about the fake recruiters who InMail you about a great position with their company. I shut up the fakes by requesting their corporate email address at their supposed employer. But what if LinkedIn could catch them BEFORE they ever sent that InMail to me?
LinkedIn is trying.
From HR Dive, brought to my attention by Jennifer Schlador on LinkedIn.
“LinkedIn is looking to take on scammers who falsely present themselves as recruiters or company representatives in the app, with an expansion of its company verification option, while it’s also making workplace verification required when a member adds or updates a leadership or recruiter-related role.”
Of course, the proposed Know Your Recruiter system isn’t foolproof; nothing is. Scammers can avoid the LinkedIn verification step by simply NOT choosing a leadership or recruiter-related job title.
And as much as people like me wish that people would care about verified identities…many don’t.
But at least the attempt demonstrates that LinkedIn cares more about their real users than about the scammers who pay for Premium.
I’m conducting an experiment in which an AI bot, “Bredebot,” is writing on the Bredemarket blog and on LinkedIn with almost no restrictions.
Don’t do this at home. It’s not a good idea.
This post describes an example in which Bredebot misses a critically important point about Bredemarket’s target audience in the identity/biometric industry.
Earlier today, I asked Bredebot to write a post analyzing a Drew Mabry quote:
“The true competitive advantage isn’t the Al tools themselves but how you use them. Your unique processes for data capture, knowledge management, and building trust are the real ‘moat.’ Al becomes powerful when it’s integrated with your proprietary insights and context, making your approach impossible to replicate.”
Mabry also advocates including a human in the loop: his firm, Fast + Light, always asks at least one human (preferably two) to review all AI-generated content.
In my Bredebot experiment, I rarely edit what Bredebot says. If you know me, it’s very obvious that Bredebot wrote this and I didn’t.
“Building Trust: In the identity and biometrics space, trust isn’t just a nice-to-have; it’s paramount. If customers don’t trust you with their most sensitive data, you simply don’t have a business. Your processes for privacy, security, transparency, and ethical AI usage are not just compliance requirements; they are fundamental differentiators. How you communicate these efforts, how you manage data breaches (heaven forbid!), and how you constantly reinforce your commitment to security are all part of this trust-building moat. This is where your wombat customers, usually burrowing away, will emerge to praise (or criticize) your efforts.”
While I certainly agree with the sentiment, and obviously don’t mind the reference to wombats, I would have made one change.
I would have modified Bredebot’s use of the T word. Just because Mabry used it doesn’t mean that Bredebot has to do the same.
Why not? Because the word “trust” is massively overused in the identity/biometric industry. So much so that you can’t tell one company from another.
“Now perhaps some of you would argue that trust is essential to identity verification in the same way that water is essential to an ocean, and that therefore EVERYBODY HAS to use the t-word in their communications.
“Don’t tell that to Black Ink Tech, who uses the trademark ‘Truth Over Trust.’
“And no, they didn’t violate any law by using an unapproved word. Instead, they got attention by standing out from the crowd.”
And identity/biometric firms are the primary hungry people (target audience) for the Bredemarket blog.
So I definitely would have edited that paragraph.
So why didn’t I?
I’m going to dodge that question by asking you one.
Do you need an experienced human to help your identity, biometric, or technology organization product marketing?
Visit this page to set up a free meeting with Bredemarket. I’ll ask some questions to get things moving.
I just published a new edition of Bredemarket’s LinkedIn newsletter this afternoon. Here’s how I started it:
“For years I maintained a negative stance on generative AI-authored text. But I recently tried relaxing it. By doing this I learned what AI authors are capable of…and what they clearly CANNOT do.”
Much of the article rehashes material I’ve shared before, but I did provide a little detail on the temperamental writer’s emotional hurt when Zoominfo turned to the bots:
“My first reaction was akin to a river in Egypt. I remain a temperamental writer, you know.”
But at least I closed the thing with a call to action.
“But if you are a marketing leader at an identity, biometric, or technology company, and you want an experienced human to help you with your content, proposals, and analysis, why don’t you schedule a free meeting with me to talk about your needs. Visit https://bredemarket.com/mark/ to find out more.”
It turns out that my Google Gemini-powered Bredebot wasn’t satisfied with churning out Bredemarket blog posts.
So now Bredebot has created the LinkedIn page https://www.linkedin.com/showcase/bredebot/.
And is already posting. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/bredebot_well-fellow-cmos-for-the-last-couple-of-activity-7367357969627348992-Wk8K
And hallucinating:
“Well, fellow CMOs, for the last couple of years, I’ve been holed up on the Bredemarket blog…”
Um, actually less than a week. It just feels like two years.
In case you missed it, I reshared Ricardo Amper’s announcement on LinkedIn.
Then re-reshared it on Instagram and elsewhere.
Incode’s announcement is here.
(Imagen 4)
Told you it was going to be a busy day.
Although my first of my three meetings started at 7:30 am, my day actually started three hours earlier with light Things To Accomplish. Suffice it to say that the Bredemarket blog will have daily content until Monday, August 4.
My first two meetings were followed by content creation (including a personal LinkedIn article on product marketing strategy) and other tasks.
I took a mid-afternoon break before my third meeting, the Inland Empire BizFest in Montclair. I wrote about that here and here, plus on the Bredemarket socials.
In fact I knew I would be so busy today that I declined a personal invite at 10 this morning. Good thing I declined, because I was neck deep in a requirements workbook (yeah, Microsoft Excel again) for a Bredemarket client’s end customer. (Can you say TOT? I knew you could.)
Anyway, I left Montclair Place before 7:30 pm and called it a night after a long day.
Thankfully the first day of August only includes a single meeting.
Which starts at 7:00 am.
Bredemarket