Health marketing leaders know that pharmacy product marketing can be complex because of the many stakeholders involved. Depending upon the product or service, your hungry people (target audience) may consist of multiple parties.
Pharmaceutical companies.
Pharmacists.
Medical professionals.
Insurance companies.
Partners who assist the companies above.
Consumers.
And the pharmacy product marketer has to create positioning and messaging for all these parties, for a myriad of use cases: fulfillment, approval, another approval, yet another approval. All the messaging can become a complex matrix. (I know. I’ve maintained a similar messaging matrix for an ABM marketing campaign for the financial services industry.)
To achieve your goals, health marketing leaders require a mix of strategy and tactics. And that’s where my extensive experience can help with your pharmacy product marketing program.
The experts who do NOT recommend letting ChstGPT run your marketing program DO recommend projecting authenticity in your communications.
But some prospects don’t like authenticity because it is too real and not “professional.”
I’ve alluded to the story of a group of people that knew me well. But of that group, only two felt moved to subscribe to the Bredemarket Instagram account. And one of those two subsequently unsubscribed.
Maybe the wildebeests were the problem.
The problem with people knowing you well is that they know you well…and know the wildebeests more than they want to. And when someone is focused on important business information, one wombat may be one wombat too many.
Biometric marketing leaders already know that I’ve talked about reader personas to death. But what about WRITER personas? And what happens when you try to address ALL the reader and writer personas?
Reader personas
While there are drawbacks to using personas, they are useful in both content marketing and proposal work when you want to tailor your words to resonate with particular types of readers (target audiences, or hungry people).
I still love my example from 2021 in which a mythical Request for Proposal (RFP) was issued by my hometown of Ontario, California for an Automated Biometric Identification System (ABIS). The proposal manager had to bear the following target audiences (hungry people) in mind for different parts of the proposal.
The field investigators who run across biometric evidence at the scene of a crime, such as a knife with a fingerprint on it or a video feed showing someone breaking into a liquor store.
The examiners who look at crime scene evidence and use it to identify individuals.
The people who capture biometrics from arrested individuals at livescan stations.
The information technologies (IT) people who are responsible for ensuring that Ontario, California’s biometric data is sent to San Bernardino County, the state of California, perhaps other systems such as the Western Identification Network, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
The purchasing agent who has to make sure that all of Ontario’s purchases comply with purchasing laws and regulations.
The privacy advocate who needs to ensure that the biometric data complies with state and national privacy laws.
The mayor (Paul Leon back in 2021, and still in 2025), who has to deal with angry citizens asking why their catalytic converters are being stolen from their vehicles, and demanding to know what the mayor is doing about it.
Probably a dozen other stakeholders that I haven’t talked about yet, but who are influenced by the city’s purchasing decision.
Writer personas
But who is actually writing the text to address these different types of readers?
Now in this case I’m not talking about archetypes (a topic in itself), but about the roles of the subject matter experts who write or help write the content.
I am currently working on some internal content for a Bredemarket biometric client. I can’t reveal what type of content, but it’s a variant of one of the 22 types of content I’ve previously addressed. A 23rd type, I guess.
But what would happen if someone in a role other than product marketing consultant wrote this content?
An engineer would emphasize different things. Maybe a focus on the APIs.
A finance manager would emphasize different things. Maybe an ROI focus.
A salesperson may focus on different things. Maybe qualification of a prospect. Or eventually conversion.
So the final content is not only shaped by the reader, but by the writer.
You can’t please everyone so you’ve got to please yourself
With all the different reader and writer personas, how should you respond?
Do all the things?
Perhaps you can address everyone in a 500 page proposal, but the internal content Bredemarket is creating is less than 10 pages long.
Which is possibly already too long for MY internal target audience.
So I will NOT create the internal content that addresses the needs of EVERY reader and writer persona.
Which is one truth about (reader) personas in general. If you need to address three personas, it’s more effective to create 3 separate pieces than a single one.
Which is what I’m doing in another project for this same Bredemarket biometric client, this one customer-facing.
And the content targeted to latent examiners won’t mention the needs of Paul Leon.
In which I address the marketing leader reader persona
So now I, the biometric product marketing expert writer persona, will re-address you, the biometric marketing leader reader persona.
You need content, or proposal content.
But maybe you’re not getting it because your existing staff is overwhelmed.
So you’re delaying content creation or proposal responses, or just plain not doing it. And letting opportunities slip through your fingers.
I spend a lot of time on LinkedIn and therefore endure the regular assault from the so-called LinkedIn “experts.”
You know them.
The people who get all bent out of shape over this character—because it’s certain proof that you use “ChatGPT” (because there is no other generative AI tool) because no human ever uses em dashes.
And then in the next breath the LinkedIn “experts” slam people who don’t use “ChatGPT” to increase productivity. For example, jobseekers should use “ChatGPT” to “beat the ATS,” automatically fine-tune their resumes for every individual application, and apply to thousands of positions.
Oh, but the LinkedIn “experts” say you shouldn’t spray and pray. Tap into the hidden job market via our members-only gated website.
But that’s not the worst thing they say.
Formulate Safe Generic Pablum
When they’re not commanding you to avoid the em dash, the LinkedIn “experts” remind us that LinkedIn is a professional network. And that our communications must be professional.
No cat pictures.
No “life sucks” posts.
Nothing that would cause anyone any offense.
The ideal personal communication is this: “I am thrilled and excited to announce my CJIS certification!”
The ideal business communication is this:
Yes, the “experts” wish that businesses said nothing at all. But if they do say something, a statement like this optimizes outcomes: “WidgetCorp is dedicated to bettering the technology ecosystem.”
Such a statement is especially effective if all your competitors are saying the same thing. This unity of messaging positions you as an industry leader.
Which enables you to…argh, I can’t do this any more. I am hating myself more and more with each word I type. Can I throw up now? This is emotionally painful.
Derek Hughes just sent me an email that describes this generic pablum. It read, in part:
“Everything reads like it was written by a robot on decaf.
“Same recycled tips. Same recycled tone. Somehow, it’s all… grey.”
Obliterate Safe Generic Pablum
If your company wants conversions—and I assume that you do—avoid the generic pablum and say something.
This will bring your hungry people (target audience) to you.
And for the prospects that despise humanness and glory in generic pablum…if their focus is elsewhere, your focus won’t impede. Let them roam in the distance.
Etymologically, the opposite of impostor syndrome would be expositor syndrome. I asked my buddy Google Gemini to hallucinate a definition, and this is what I got:
“Expositor Syndrome is a hypothetical, non-clinical psychological pattern characterized by an overwhelming and often compulsive urge to explain, clarify, or elaborate upon concepts, ideas, or events, even when such detailed exposition is unsolicited, unnecessary, or redundant. Individuals exhibiting Expositor Syndrome experience a profound discomfort or anxiety if they perceive a potential for misunderstanding or an unstated implication, feeling an internal pressure to “lay bare” all facets of a topic.
“Note: This is a fictional construct, not a recognized medical or psychological condition.”
Gemini actually said a lot more, but I chose not to elaborate.
This, rather than a delusion of grandeur, is considered the opposite of impostor syndrome because an impostor HIDES their true talented self, whereas an expositor ELABORATES and goes on and on about their knowledge. Until their friends become former friends and stop speaking to them.
But can someone exhibit both expositor syndrome and a delusion of grandeur?
Perhaps such a person—if they exist—can still make positive contributions to society.
Such as the Bredemarket 2800 Medium Writing Service, approximately 2800 to 3200 words that (a) answers the WHY/HOW/WHAT questions about you, (b) advances your GOAL, (c) communicates your BENEFITS, and (d) speaks to your TARGET AUDIENCE.
I’m moving in a different direction on social media. Well, personal social media anyway.
There are multiple schools of thought about whether small companies with well-known leaders should share content on their company platforms or their personal social media platforms.
On one extreme, companies only share content on company channels, to better establish the brand of WidgetCorp or whatever.
On the other extreme, company heads only share content on their personal channels because their personal connections are so important to the company’s success. In fact, these company heads may not even bother to create separate company pages.
Obviously, most companies and company heads adopt a “do both” tactic. Maybe the company head reshares company posts. Or maybe the company reshares company head posts.
Or they do something that John Bredehoft and Bredemarket have done in the past: share the same content on both the company and the personal channels.
I might not do that any more.
The experiment
The rationale behind sharing company posts on your personal channels is that your personal friends like you and will engage with your company posts.
But this rationale ignores one very pertinent fact: most of my friends have NO interest in identity, biometrics, cybersecurity, or related technologies.
Why would they engage with such content if it doesn’t interest them?
I’d share Bredemarket Facebook content to my personal Facebook feed…and with very few exceptions I’d end up with crickets.
Or I’d share some Bredemarket LinkedIn content to my personal LinkedIn account. Often…crickets.
But most painful of all was when I would share Bredemarket Instagram posts to my Instagram stories. Higher impressions then the same stories on the Bredemarket account…but absolutely no engagement. Crickets again.
So on Monday afternoon I intentionally conducted an experiment on my personal Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn accounts, where together I have a combined 3,396 connections. My Monday afternoon identity/biometric and product marketing-related content received a total of 9 engagements…and that’s counting the Instagram user who requested “Can u share it @canadian.icon”).
Even acccounting for the three algorithms involved…that’s low.
And it…um, prompted me to ask myself a “why” question.
Why share corporate content on personal feeds?
Good question.
So for now I’m “moving in a different direction” (a few of you know where THAT phrase originated) and not bothering to share Bredemarket content on my personal feeds. At least for now.
Those who are dying to see Bredemarket content will subscribe to the appropriate Bredemarket Facebook, Instagram, or LinkedIn feeds.
But frankly, my friends have no need or desire to see Bredemarket content, so they won’t.
In my case, my high school friends, church friends, and even some of my former coworkers (who left the identity/biometric industry years ago) are NOT Bredemarket’s hungry people. So I’ll spare them the parade of wildebeests, wombats, and iguanas.
Product and service marketing is deceptively easy…because there’s no need to market to everyone.
I just calculated the numbers. Of the world’s population (not counting non-person entities) a generous (!) maximum of 8,000 people are hungry and interested in buying the services Bredemarket provides.
The true number is probably more like 800, but let me fantasize for a moment.
Unreal fantasy.
Or to put it another way, 99.9999% of people have absolutely no interest in Bredemarket.
But I didn’t privately contact people and gloat about my byline.
Well, with two exceptions. Because I wrote briefly (one sentence) about third-party risk management, I privately alerted two TPRM professionals who wouldn’t have seen it otherwise.
“Employ third-party risk management (TPRM) to minimize the risk when biometric data is stored with cloud providers, application partners, and companies in the supply chain.”
Pearls and ice
Other than that, I engaged in no private messaging, even to long-standing biometric professionals.
Some of the biometric professionals saw my blog or social mentions of the guest post and were duly impressed.
Others likely saw my blog or social mentions and didn’t care one bit.
The rest never saw my blog or social mentions, which meant that they didn’t actively follow Bredemarket, which again meant that they didn’t care at all.
The whole pearls before swine story plays here.
Or selling ice makers to Eskimos.
A lost cause.
Whatever example you prefer, there’s no need to market your product to those who don’t give a REDACTED about it.
“Steak and Kidney Pie – It is a classic British pie filled with chunks of beef steak and kidneys cooked in a rich gravy.
“Chicken and Mushroom Pie – This pie is made with tender pieces of chicken combined with mushrooms in a creamy sauce, which is then encased in pastry.
“Cornish Pasty – Although Cornish Pasty is not a pie, many refer to it as a handheld pie. It is a pastry filled with diced meat, potatoes, and vegetables.
“Shepherd’s Pie – A minced lamb or beef pie is topped with mashed potatoes in this preparation.”
And on and on through other meats, but no apple pie on the list. (And forget about pumpkin pie.)
Cars
Which brings us to the British equivalent of the Chevrolet. In the 1970s, I’m not certain that Chevrolet was “America’s favorite car”—sister GM brand Oldsmobile may have held that title numerically. But “Chevy” vied with Ford as the sentimental favorite in the 1970s.
Today America’s favorite car is the Toyota.
But what of the United Kingdom? Obviously not everyone could afford a Rolls Royce. They were buying Fords in 1975, primarily the Cortina and the Escort. I owned an Escort here in the U.S. many years later, but never owned a Cortina, a primarily UK auto related to the Taurus.
Bredemarket 