Taking over the writing job entirely, and charging a subscription for it

Monthly SaaS subscription; tiers differ by output volume and features

Checked on the official site 2026-08-31 — from $49/month. ⚠️ Higher tiers are not listed on the page. ✅ Cross-check — verified MRR $43,858 ÷ 604 active subscriptions = about $72.6 per subscription, which sits above the published $49 entry price. That implies higher tiers exist, so the two figures do not contradict each other. We do not print the higher amounts, because we could not read them.

Founders and small teams too busy building to touch SEO

Independent evidence — TrustMRR reads these figures through a direct Stripe API key connection. The page states "Revenue is verified with Stripe API key" and stamps the refresh time as "Aug 31, 2026, 08:16 AM". The number comes from the payment system rather than the founder, which is what makes this grade A. Confirmed — MRR $43,858 · active subscriptions 604 · last 30 days $48,096 · all-time $1,844,734 (checked 2026-08-31). Cross-check — the implied $72.6 per subscription sits above the published $49 entry price, consistent with higher tiers existing. ⚠️ Not confirmed — the higher tier prices (absent from the page), headcount, and the country of incorporation (we followed TrustMRR's "Türkiye" without verifying it separately). 🔴 Grade A says the revenue is real, and nothing more. It does not say one person could do this, or that you could copy it — and here, neither is true.

• TrustMRR — verified via Stripe API. MRR $43,858 · 604 active subscriptions · $1,844,734 all-time · refreshed 2026-08-31 08:16 (revenue_dashboard · checked 2026-08-31)
• Official site — liveness, $49/month entry price, named founder, and the company's own statement about quality limits (official_site · checked 2026-08-31)

See the grading rules

It took over the job, not a step in the job. Research, drafting, linking and publishing move together, so there is no seam for a human to fall into. Automate one slice and the buyer ends up doing the rest — and then all of it. And his own portfolio was the first customer. Building it for eleven products he already ran is the cheapest validation available.

• The company states the quality range itself — that output sometimes matches an average human writer, sometimes falls short. Not hiding it is a good sign, but the buyer absorbs that variance.
• One search-engine policy decision sits under the whole business. How search treats volume AI publishing can change what this product is worth.
• This is not a solo case. Two people appear in the contacts, and the founder already ran many products. That is why we score reproducibility at 2.
• The site states some adult niches are not guaranteed, because model safety filters may refuse or soften the output.

Building this in Korea is hard; using it is available today. Korean-language output quality has to be checked separately, since the quality range the site describes is stated for English. What transfers is the order: solve your own problem, then sell the tool. He built it for his own products, and that use was the first validation. That sequence works anywhere. ⚠️ Publishing AI-written articles at volume sits close to Google's spam policy — the same ground on which this site puts human review in front of publishing.

We do not print a single projected figure here. Put your own numbers in instead.

Break-even calculator →