Expert ghostwriting studio
Their strongest ideas remain unpublished because writing takes too long. Interview-led writing with an evolving personal voice and argument library.
01The offer
For independent consultants with specialist expertise, turn authorized interviews, prior writing and verified supporting material into author-approved articles and newsletters. Address the recurring problem: their strongest ideas remain unpublished because writing takes too long. The value hypothesis is a more complete, reviewable deliverable with less repeated preparation; the pilot must establish whether that benefit is real.
- For
- Independent consultants with specialist expertise
- Takes in
- Authorized interviews, prior writing and verified supporting material
- Delivers
- Author-approved articles and newsletters
- Message
- Expert ghostwriting studio for independent consultants with specialist expertise. Interview-led writing with an evolving personal voice and argument library. Demonstrate the claim through one expert interview converted into an article.
- Lead magnet
- One expert interview converted into an article
02How it works
- Extract original arguments
- Preserve voice examples
- Develop outlines
- Verify factual claims
- Manage revisions
- Adapt publication formats
Workflow
Collect a structured brief and source material, identify unanswered questions, approve an outline, generate a draft, verify claims, gather reviewer edits, approve a final version and export the agreed formats. Start with authorized interviews, prior writing and verified supporting material and finish with author-approved articles and newsletters.
AI and people
Extract and organize information, propose structure, draft prose and adapt approved content to audiences. Attach evidence to factual claims. Keep names, dates, amounts and quoted wording linked to their source. Editors resolve ambiguity and approve publication.
Screens
Key screens: Idea archive, article drafts, author approval. Use a project list and editorial calendar beside a document editor. Keep original material and supporting passages in a collapsible side panel. Show outline, draft, review and approved stages. Provide tracked edits, comments, version comparisons and an export preview that reflects the final delivery format. In this product, the first view is solution archive, followed by article drafts and author approval.
Admin
Client workspaces, source permissions, editorial assignments, change history, reviewer comments, approval gates, revision allowances and export templates.
03Market gap
Alternatives buyers use today
Writers, editors, agencies, internal document templates and general-purpose chat tools. Differentiate on this specific proposed advantage: interview-led writing with an evolving personal voice and argument library. Test it against the buyer's current method on the same task. Competitor coverage and uniqueness have not been established.
Where this wins
Customer-approved terminology, reusable structures, source libraries and editorial feedback tied to a specific audience and recurring publishing workflow. For this solution, build around interview-led writing with an evolving personal voice and argument library. This advantage requires execution and accumulated customer trust; the base model alone is not a defensible asset.
04Why now
Writers teams are adopting AI for exactly this kind of repeatable work, and the cost of language and vision models has dropped far enough that a narrow, reviewed workflow pays back quickly. The buyer already feels the problem: their strongest ideas remain unpublished because writing takes too long.
05Proof & signals
Channels where buyers gather: Consultant communities and executive advisers. Metrics that prove it works: Author revision time, repeat commissions.
Paid pilot
Complete one existing brief using the customer’s actual sources. Record reviewer edits, factual corrections and preparation time. Ask the same buyer to commission a second comparable deliverable. For this solution, use authorized interviews, prior writing and verified supporting material and evaluate author-approved articles and newsletters. Agree success thresholds with the buyer before starting; collect a baseline for author revision time, repeat commissions. A positive signal is payment and repeat use with acceptable quality and delivery cost, not a favorable demo reaction alone.
06Execution plan
MVP
Begin with independent consultants with specialist expertise and one recurring use case. Build the first two modules: extract original arguments; preserve voice examples. Provide operator assistance for the third module: develop outlines. Deliver author-approved articles and newsletters through a manual review queue. Perform other necessary full-scope functions manually during the pilot. Include all applicable access, accuracy and professional-review controls from the start.
First 30 days
Week 1: interview five prospective buyers in this segment: independent consultants with specialist expertise. Ask to see a recent example of the problem and their current process. Week 2: prepare this demonstration using authorized or synthetic material: one expert interview converted into an article. Week 3: present it through consultant communities and executive advisers and seek one narrowly scoped paid pilot. Week 4: review author revision time, repeat commissions, total delivery effort and a concrete renewal decision before increasing scope.
After the pilot
After paid pilots establish value, automate the remaining modules: verify factual claims; manage revisions; adapt publication formats. Add one validated source integration, reusable customer configuration and recurring delivery. Expand to additional teams, document formats or languages only after testing the new scope.
Retention
Maintain the approved source and voice library, schedule recurring editorial work, and expand into additional formats only after the core deliverable is repeatedly accepted.
Integrations
Author-owned manuscripts, authorized interviews and permitted research sources. Document storage, word processor export, content management systems and approved publishing channels. Pilot with uploads and downloadable drafts before adding write integrations. These are candidate integration categories, not verified supported connectors.
07Investment and running costs
| Phase | Scope | Time | Budget |
|---|---|---|---|
| MVP | One buyer segment, one recurring use case; first modules: extract original arguments; preserve voice examples. Manual review in the loop. | 4 days | $8,000 |
| Paid pilot | Accounts, roles, review states, audit trail and the first integration, hardened for two to three paying pilot customers. | 5 days | $9,500 |
| Full product | Remaining modules: verify factual claims; manage revisions; adapt publication formats. Self-serve onboarding, billing, monitoring and the wider integration set. | 10 days | $13,500 |
| Total | $31,000 | ||
| Running | Hosting | AI usage | Total a month |
|---|---|---|---|
| MVP and paid pilot (about 3 customers) | $30–$60 | $70–$140 | $100–$200 |
| Full product (about 50 customers) | $110–$210 | $700–$1,400 | $810–$1,610 |
Revenue model to test
Test USD 400-1,500 for a tightly scoped initial content package. Convert repeated work to a monthly retainer with explicit deliverable and revision limits. Specialist review and substantial research are separately scoped. Prices are hypotheses.
Cost drivers
Research and interview time, transcription, model usage, factual verification, subject-matter review, editing and revisions.
Safeguards
Preserve author voice, source attribution, quotation accuracy and usage permissions. Authors approve substantive changes and publication scope. Validate source access and reviewer availability during the pilot. Maintain customer-level access, data deletion controls and a record of final approvals.
Take it further
Concept proposal expanded from the 315-solution conversation. Demand, pricing, differentiation, build scope and integration feasibility are hypotheses, not verified market findings. Category link is inspiration rather than evidence of business viability.