That’s the exact example given by , a San Francisco-based generative AI startup that announced its launch on Monday with $65 million in its arsenal. Funding came from , , (’s venture fund) and .

The company’s AI platform is tailored specifically for “enterprise content creation” — companies can create product shots, blog posts, social media ads and job posts that meet brand specifications and tailor marketing to niche audiences.  

The company is working with a handful of companies including to create optimal headlines, test different media assets, and even brainstorm content ideas. 

“By adding brand affinity to generative AI, Typeface allows enterprises to harness their collective creative power for unique expression of their stories and imagination,” said Typeface CEO and former CTO . “Now, any company can transform content into a value multiplier.”

Marketing reimagined

Funding to generative AI startups reached its peak in 2021 with over $3.9 billion. But 2022 wasn’t much different — while funding dried up in many other sectors, the industry garnered over $3.7 billion in venture funding.

Typeface joins an ever-growing list of generative AI companies tailored for enterprise-grade marketing. , a Texas-based AI startup, can churn out blog posts, email ads, posts and video scripts “10 times faster” (than humans, I assume). San Francisco-based works with huge brands like , and to increase content output and traffic searches.

Which begs the question: What will the future of marketing jobs look like in an AI-laced industry?

Related reading:

• A Human Breaks Down Some Top Categories For Generative AI Funding
• January Monthly Recap: OpenAI Raised A Third Of All Funding
• AI In 2023: A Year of Reckoning In The Enterprise

Illustration:

Subscribe to the Crunchbase Daily

MX3, which splits operations between Melbourne and Austin, touts its product as portable, immediate and noninvasive – hence spit versus blood. This, it hopes, will appeal to a broader base of customers, said MX3 CEO and co-founder Michael Luther.

Essentially, users turn on a hand-held device about the size of a remote control, insert a “test strip” into the device and then applies it to their tongue. Once they get a microliter of saliva from the tip of their tongue, a beep sounds, and the measurement is made. The device syncs with an app, which will then indicates their level of hydration.

Luther told me the company is working on testing for electrolyte balance, sleep patterns and diet and nutrition through this method – however right now, the product only tracks hydration levels.

The target customers are individuals concerned enough with their hydration to invest in a product focused on it, mainly by athletes, sports teams or elite trainers, Luther said.

So far, the company has experimented with the Swedish national soccer team. It is also working with a number of “high profile university athletic departments across the country,” Luther said.

When it comes to rapid diagnostics, most people think of wearables – an industry some say will reach $27 billion by 2022. Luther said he thinks that the industry is fairly commoditized, and underserved.

Right now, “wearables are just limited to what you can gather from the surface of the skin,” he said. “So while there are innovations happening all over the world, they’re happening from a surface level.”

Minneapolis-based CEO somewhat disagrees. His company created a small wearable that measures brain waves and tracks mental health patterns.

He says that taking data from an invasive route will always give you raw data that is “closer and closer to the truth.” But due to advancements in wearable technologies, a wearable can get you equally as close.

Rowan added that ��ū������ is trying to make its product cheaper so more people can access it: Currently, it prices around $129 to $200 with plans to go to market in 2020.

Wearables in general, while marketed to make on-demand health data more accessible, are on the steep-end of pricing. MX3, as mentioned, sells for $750. For context another company, LetsGetChecked, sells on-demand lab tests, and has a $49 diabetes test. This isn’t bad compared to tests that cost thousands of dollars through a doctor’s office, but it’s still not cheap.

Ultimately Peter Foley, the CEO and founder of LetsGetChecked, reminded me that as much as tracking, and owning your health is important, data only helps so much.

In most cases, answers about how you’re doing health-wise are time sensitive, he said, “it’s often only a reflection of what’s happening at that moment.”

Illustration Credit:

Editor’s note: A previous version of this article had the wrong price for LetsGetChecked tests. The price has been updated to reflect the correct number.