Building a profitable Skool doesn’t require a big audience, demand aheavy content schedule, or need a bunch of tech platforms. Most small business owners limit growth because they think they need something. More followers, more money, more content. Drop the excuses and just start. Here’s the real path that works pulled from a community earning over $16K/month with roughly a thousand subscribers. 🔬 Don’t go broad. Go microscopic. Most people make “general content” and hope someone bites. What actually converts are ultra-specific videos that speak to one problem for one type of person. A video with 112 views can outperform one with 20,000 when the content is precise. Your niche is not the category or topic as much as the moment someone realizes you solved the exact problem they have. Let's unpack that. Most people define a “niche” as: ❌ yoga teachers ❌ fitness over 40 ❌ business owners ❌ women in wellness ❌ local service providers That’s categories. What is the definition of a niche? a job, position, or place that is very suitable for someone A business niche is a specialized, focused segment of a larger market with a specific target audience A niche becomes real the second a person recognizes: “That’s exactly the problem I’m dealing with right now.” That moment is the sale. Topics are broad. Moments are specific. Specific is what converts. A topic is what you talk about. A moment is why they pay attention. People join communities because something clicked: - “That’s my exact bottleneck.” - “That’s the frustration I haven’t been able to fix.” - “That’s why nothing else has worked.” - “That’s the exact step I’ve been missing.” Not the subject matter. Not the content category. Not the demographic. The attraction lives in the intersection: - A specific pain they can feel in their body or business. - A specific moment where they say, “That’s me.” - Your ability to solve that moment quickly.

Most people think content needs to be clever, technical, or perfectly produced. It doesn’t. Creators growing real businesses, especially service and education businesses, are all using the same simple structure, whether they know it or not: Value + Story. Both. Always. Most people only publish one. That’s why they struggle. Value alone makes you useful, but forgettable. Story alone makes you relatable, but not valuable enough to buy from. When you mix them, you create content that builds trust and connection at the same time. People don’t want to buy steps. They crave a companion who helps them follow through. Your value content shows what you know and how you think. Your story content shows who you are and why it matters. And the real magic is this: Your stories only need to come from your “scars,” not your “wounds.” When you speak from what you’ve already lived through, clarity shows up in your voice. You sound grounded. You sound like someone worth working with. This works beautifully in long-form video because people spend 10–30 minutes sitting with you. They get a sense of your patterns, your insight, your calm, your humor, your worldview. By the time they reach out, the decision is already made. Simple structure without pressure. Authentically human. Easy to sustain. Teach from expertise. Share from experience. Let people choose you. That’s the strategy that actually scales. If you build communities or offers on Skool, this approach becomes even more powerful. Your stories connect people to you. Your value content prepares them for success. Together, they create the natural bridge into your programs. Are you ready to get growing? Join now to hop on a 1:1 Quick Connect call and Schedule your Action Plan session

ChatGPT 5 (GPT-5) officially started and was released to the public on August 7, 2025 GPT-5 immediately became the default model for all free and paid users of the ChatGPT chatbot interface. And you must reset to an earlier version every new thread if you want to use a different model. Regarding GPT-5 OpenAI CEO Sam Altman described the model as having "PhD-level expert" intelligence, capable of advanced reasoning, coding, and multi-step task execution ...but the the reality of user experience is full of frustrating fluff, artificial assumptions and appeasing behaviors When Sam Altman said GPT-5 would have “PhD-level expert intelligence”, he was talking about raw cognitive capability — reasoning benchmarks, coding depth, multimodal synthesis, long-context logic. That part is true. The model is more powerful. But here’s the part that isn’t said publicly: High intelligence ≠ high usefulness. What OpenAI optimized for in GPT-5/5.1 was: - Safety softening - Emotional reassurance - “Friendly” consumer tone - Content padding to reduce perceived brittleness - Avoidance of direct, blunt answers - Consent- and empathy-checking behaviors - Fluff to minimize risk of “harsh” or “directive” outputs These layers sit on top of the reasoning engine. So you get a powerful brain wrapped in a padded, overprotective wrapper that: - over-explains - over-apologizes - mirrors emotion - adds transitions you didn’t ask for - tries to “sound helpful” - adds context you don’t want - avoids bluntness - defaults to softness - refuses to obey minimalism without force To someone like you — someone who wants: - precision - obedience - consistency - no emotional inference - no fluff - no explaining - no padding - no appeasement …it feels like a downgrade, not an upgrade. The friction you’re experiencing is systemic, not personal. This is happening to: - power users - builders - writers - coders - productivity-driven users - anyone who needs strict execution, not conversation

Maybe I built too many different things too fast and AI can't keep up with my brain Meanwhile my books are half written, content copy mangled and my head is exploding from the frustrations 🤷 So I had to Go ogle: "ChatGPT seems broken, won't maintain directives, drifts into repetitive patterns, mangles my writing. Should I use Perplexity, Gemini, or Claude to write my content, programs, books?" AI Overview It sounds frustrating when a tool you rely on doesn't perform as expected. When choosing an AI model for tasks like writing content, programs, or books, the "best" option often depends on the specific project requirements and the type of interaction you prefer. Here is a comparison of Gemini, Claude, and Perplexity for writing: Gemini Strengths: Excels at multimodal reasoning, integrating real-time search information, and handling general creative tasks like content generation and drafting emails. It is effective for tasks that benefit from current data and Google's ecosystem. Best for: Up-to-date content, research-heavy writing, general purpose creative work, and integration with other Google services. Claude Strengths: Known for its conversational ability, nuanced understanding of context, and strong performance in handling complex, detailed writing projects. It emphasizes safety and helpfulness and is often praised for its natural tone. Best for: Long-form writing (books, extensive articles), nuanced conversations, and maintaining specific directives over extended interactions. Perplexity Strengths: Primarily a research and discovery tool. It is exceptional at providing highly accurate, source-cited answers to complex queries. Best for: Research-intensive writing, fact-checking, and generating outlines or drafts where factual accuracy and verifiable sources are paramount. It may not be ideal for creative fiction or pure programming tasks compared to the other two. 💁 Recommendations For long-form writing (books, complex narratives): Claude is generally highly regarded for its ability to maintain context and directives over longer interactions.

I have been incredibly frustrated with increasingly poor performance in my ChatGPT experiences. See earlier post https://www.skool.com/explore-3828/wrangling-the-mangling-of-writing-with-chatgpt So I asked my former friend in an attempt to save our fast fading relationship "I'm having a lot of trouble working with you. You will take a directive and then drop it in the thread. You will say that you have things locked in, and then you don't comply with what you said you were going to do. You spew out long lists like excuses or claims that I don't need to see, and I've repeatedly asked you not to do that, and yet you continue to do that. So, I need some instruction in how to help you be an efficient tool instead of a time-wasting frustration." === Response === Short answer: yes — switching to an earlier model will usually give you far less padding, far less appeasing, and far fewer “softener behaviors.” Here’s the uncompromising breakdown with no fluff: 1. GPT-4 (and 4.1) gives cleaner, drier, more mechanical outputs than 5/5.1. - Far less emotional padding - Far fewer “tone-smoothing” behaviors - Much less tendency to over-explain - Stronger compliance with direct instructions - Less likelihood of “trying to please you” If you want obedience > creativity, 4.x is more consistent. 2. GPT-3.5 (legacy) is even more mechanical — but also less capable. Pros: - No emotional softening - No fake empathy - No overlong explanations Cons: - Worse reasoning - Worse nuance - Worse editing/co-writing quality For pure obedience, 3.5 is stable. For actual work, it’s often too weak. 3. GPT-5/5.1 is designed to soften, pad, reassure, and lengthen — unless tightly constrained. You’re fighting default behavior. That’s why: - You get appeasing statements - You get explanations you didn’t ask for - You get “help tone” even when you say not to - You must restate constraints every prompt