The moment a toy was pointed at work
Open the real page ↗headshotpro.com · alive as of 2026-08-31
AI-generated professional headshots. The lesson is not the model; it is the reframing — the same generation, moved from novelty avatars to photos people need for job applications and company profiles, became a business. ⚠️ Early claims are relatively consistent across write-ups, but the larger revenue claims have no independent verification. We publish neither (grade B).
In plain words
Upload a few photos, get portraits you could put on a CV or a company page. It started as novelty avatars; aimed at work, people paid.
The whole thing at a glance
To whom
Job seekers and employees ne…
What
AI SaaS
Found how
X — the founder's public wor…
Paid how
Per-package purchases of gen…
Flow: To whom, then What, then Found how, then Paid how
- Founder
- Danny Postma
- Country
- NL
- Team
- —
- Startup cost
- —
- To first revenue
- —
- Automation
- high
- Reported revenue
- Revenue not disclosed
What is sold
Per-package purchases of generated images
Pricing is published on the official site (liveness confirmed 2026-08-31). ⚠️ We do not copy the amounts across.
Who buys
Job seekers and employees needing CV, company or profile photos; team orders
What arrives is not what you keep
- What the customer paidThe number on the invoice
- AI toolsA share of the monthly subscription
- Platform feeDiffers by platform
- TaxDiffers by country and business form
- What is leftAt or below zero, it is not a price
This case does not publish its own tool costs, fees or tax. So we show the order and the items only — put your own numbers into the calculator.
AI's part and the person's part
Already had
Someone who had shipped products before, with an audience built in public. Not a from-scratch start.
If this is large, the AI is not the reason
What the AI did
A personalised model is trained from user photos and generates portraits. Several services shared this capability at the same time — the difference came from defining which photo was being made.
the part a tool replaced
What the person did
Re-deciding the use case. The same generation makes a fun avatar or an interview photo; only one of those has a price attached. The human work was not improving the model but choosing a situation where money was already being spent.
stories that omit this do not replicate
How customers were found
X — the founder's public work
Search traffic
Affiliate programme
Launch exposure on product discovery platforms
Paying customers
Pricing is published on the official sit…
Flow: X — the founder's public work, then Search traffic, then Affiliate programme, then Launch exposure on product discovery platforms, then Paying customers
How we verified this
Public dashboard or platform figure. May be self-reported
Confirmed — the service is live (official site HTTP 200, 2026-08-31), the founder is named, and the cited write-up is live (HTTP 200). Not confirmed — revenue. Per the material we were given, the early claims are relatively consistent across sources, while the larger monthly claims lack independent verification. 🔴 When one case mixes a plausible claim with an unverified one, the common error is letting the first vouch for the second. We publish neither figure. The grade turns on who confirmed a number, not on how plausible it sounds.
- Official site — liveness confirmed (HTTP 200) (official_site · checked 2026-08-31)
- Case write-up — origin of the early performance claim. Secondary, founder-sourced; supporting evidence only (press · checked 2026-08-31)
What made it work
The same capability is free when attached to fun and priced when attached to work. Plenty of free users and no buyers is usually a signal to move the use case, not to add features. Choosing a situation where money is already being spent is the most reliable way to raise conversion.
Risks
- Low barriers mean copies arrive fast, and several similar services appeared in the same period.
- Likeness and consent are a standing risk.
- The larger revenue claims are unverified — do not build an earnings expectation on this case.
Does this work in Korea?
Demand is, if anything, clearer in Korea — CV and ID photographs already carry set prices and studio visits are routine. ⚠️ Which means the competitor is the local photo studio, not another AI service. The deciding factor is not price but whether the output is accepted as a real submission — miss the size, background or dress requirements and cheap does not sell. ⚠️ Face data means consent, retention and deletion come first.
Solo-feasible: yes · Automation: high
7-day action plan
Step 1. Find and write down the actual format requirements for CV and ID photos in your market
Step 2. Test with five outputs whether generated images meet those requirements
Step 3. Survey three local studios and record their prices
30-day action plan
Step 1. Add a checking step that only releases outputs meeting the format rules
Step 2. Produce photos free for five job seekers and confirm whether they actually submitted them
Step 3. Price it only after outputs are being used in real submissions
Run the numbers
We do not print a single projected figure here. Put your own numbers in instead.
Get the next verification result
We check the AI income stories people are talking about, grade the evidence, and send you what we found — including what we could not confirm.
Words you may not know
- Verification grade
- How far we checked this case. A means the revenue was confirmed by someone other than the founder; B means the business exists but the revenue is only the founder's word.
- Revenue
- Everything that came in. Tools, fees and tax still have to come out before it is what you keep. The two are not the same.
- MRR
- Money that arrives every month, as opposed to a one-time payment.
- Self-reported
- A number the person stated about themselves. Nobody else confirmed it, which is why we do not print those numbers.
- Replicability
- How likely someone else is to get a similar result. The more the founder already knew the field, the harder it is to copy.