~ / AI Research / Cursor for Writing

“Cursor for Writing”: 10 Vertical Niches Where AI-Assisted Writing Could Be a Bootstrapped Business

Cursor proved that an AI-native code editor, built on top of VS Code with deep context awareness, could reach $1B+ ARR in under two years — the fastest any SaaS product has ever scaled. The question: can the same model work for non-code writing verticals? And more importantly, can it work as a bootstrapped business?

This analysis first examines why general-purpose AI writing tools failed (Jasper’s crash from $120M to $55M revenue, Copy.ai’s survival pivot), what makes the Cursor model different, and then evaluates 10 specific verticals for bootstrapper viability. The goal: find verticals with high pain, high willingness to pay, fragmented tooling, and where context-awareness (not generic generation) is the key differentiator.

The Cursor Model: Why It Works

Cursor (Anysphere) Key Metrics
ARR trajectory~$1M (2023) → $100M (Jan 2025) → $500M (May 2025) → $1B+ (Nov 2025)
Time to $1B ARR~24 months — fastest SaaS product in history
Users2M total, 1M+ paying subscribers
Enterprise adoption50%+ of Fortune 500 (NVIDIA 30K devs, Uber, Adobe)
PricingPro $20/mo, Business $40/user/mo, Ultra $200/mo
Valuation$29.3B (Nov 2025). In talks at $11B (Feb 2026)
Marketing spend$0 — entirely word-of-mouth

Five things make Cursor work that a “Cursor for Writing” must replicate:

1. Fork of the dominant editor (VS Code)
Users don’t learn a new tool. They get their existing workflow + AI superpowers. For writing, this means building on top of or inside something writers already use (VS Code for tech docs, Word for legal, Overleaf for academic).
2. Custom-trained tab completion
Not just a ChatGPT wrapper. Cursor trained its own model that predicts multi-line edits, not just insertions. For writing, this means predicting the next sentence in your voice and style, not generic AI prose.
3. Full project awareness
Cursor indexes your entire codebase. It understands context across files. For writing, this means understanding your entire manuscript, all your previous grants, your citation library, or your full API surface.
4. Agent mode for cross-file changes
“Make the tone more formal across all chapters” or “update all references to the old company name.” Project-level operations, not single-document edits.
5. Zero marketing, pure product-led growth
$0 marketing spend, $1B ARR. The product is so good that users recruit other users. This only works when the product delivers visible, daily, compounding productivity gains.

The profitability warning: Cursor pays ~$650M/year to Anthropic while generating ~$500M in revenue, creating a negative 30% gross margin. The company is betting on proprietary models to reach 85% gross margins by 2027. Any bootstrapped “Cursor for Writing” must carefully manage AI API costs from day one.

The AI Writing Graveyard: Why General-Purpose Failed

Jasper AI: The Cautionary Tale

Revenue trajectory
$45M (2021) → $75M (2022) → $120M (2023) → $55M (2024) — a 54% crash
Valuation
Raised $125M at $1.5B valuation (October 2022). Cut internal valuation 20% by September 2023.
What happened
Both co-founders stepped down (September 2023) after staff cuts. Replaced by Dropbox veteran. Acquired Clipdrop (15M users) to pivot into visual content.
The core problem
“Jasper raced to a $1.5B valuation on what was essentially GPT-3 wrapped in strong UX, only to watch users realize they could get 80% of the same output for $0 directly inside ChatGPT.”

Copy.ai: The Survival Pivot

Revenue
$12M (2023) → $23.7M (2024) — but only because they abandoned AI writing entirely
The pivot
Abandoned general-purpose AI copywriting. Pivoted to enterprise GTM workflow automation. 17M+ registered users, 5K paying. They survived by ceasing to be a writing tool.

Why Thin Wrappers Die

Why Vertical AI Wins (Harvey, Abridge, Cursor)

  1. Deep domain knowledge: Harvey understands legal precedent; Abridge understands medical terminology; Cursor understands codebases
  2. Workflow integration: Tools live inside practitioners’ existing workflows, not as separate destinations
  3. Proprietary data moats: Legal training data, clinical conversation data, codebase context — none of this can be pasted into ChatGPT
  4. High willingness to pay: Lawyers bill $500+/hr. Saving 30 minutes = $250 of value. Marketing copywriters bill much less.
  5. Switching costs: Once integrated into a firm’s or hospital’s workflow, the cost of switching is enormous

Existing Writing Tools Landscape

Writing tools by revenue and model
Tool Revenue Users Model Notes
Grammarly $700M+ ARR 30M DAU Bootstrapped 8 yrs, then VC Profitable. 80% gross margins. Acquired Coda ($1.4B) and Superhuman ($835M). $13B valuation.
Notion (w/ AI) $600M 100M total, 4M paying VC-funded AI adopted by 50%+ of customers. $10.3B valuation.
Writer.com $47–$84M ARR Enterprise VC ($369M raised) Enterprise-first. Builds own LLMs (Palmyra). $1.9B valuation.
Jasper AI $55M (declining) ~100K VC ($125M raised) Crashed from $120M. Pivoting to visual.
Copy.ai $23.7M 17M registered VC ($14M raised) Pivoted away from writing to GTM automation.
Surfer SEO $16M 150K users Acquired (Positive Group) SEO content optimization. 89 employees.
Sudowrite Not disclosed 100K+ authors VC ($3M) Fiction-specific. $10–$59/mo.
ProWritingAid $5.7M 3M+ Bootstrapped ($0 raised) 52 employees. Founded 2012. Profitable.
Lex ~profitable 25K signups in 24hrs VC ($2.75M seed) By Nathan Baschez (ex-Substack). Premium sub.
Clearscope $1.5M Small Bootstrapped 14 employees. SEO content. $270+/mo.
Scrivener Not disclosed 1M+ writers Bootstrapped One-time $59.99. Since 2006. No subscription.
iA Writer Not disclosed Unknown Bootstrapped One-time purchase. Zurich-based.

The Grammarly lesson: bootstrapped to profitability, grew to 7M daily users before raising capital, and now generates $700M+ ARR. It took 8 years of patient bootstrapping before explosive growth. The moat: deep integration into every text field on the web (browser extension), not a standalone writing app. Any “Cursor for Writing” should study this path.

The “Cursor Model” Applied to Writing

The “Cursor for X” pattern emerged as a major startup thesis in 2025, with YC Demo Day pitches including Den (knowledge workers), Vesence (lawyers), and others for doctors, architects, and financial analysts. The key insight: “You can’t build collaborative intelligence for ‘everyone’ — you need rich domain context, specialized knowledge, and workflow integration that only comes from focusing on specific professional communities.”

Cursor features mapped to writing equivalents
Cursor Feature Writing Equivalent
Tab completion for code Ghost text suggesting the next sentence/paragraph in your voice and style
Inline AI suggestions AI suggests tightening a paragraph, fixing passive voice, strengthening a metaphor — shown as diffs
Chat sidebar Research sidebar: ask questions about your topic, get sourced answers, generate outlines
Multi-file project awareness Multi-document awareness: novel chapters, paper sections, grant components all indexed
Codebase indexing “Manuscript indexing”: AI reads your entire project for voice consistency, plot continuity, argument coherence
Agent mode (cross-file changes) “Make the tone more formal across all chapters” or “update all references to the old company name”
Custom-trained completion model Style-matched model trained on your existing writing to predict your voice
.cursorrules (project config) Style guide config: journal formatting rules, citation style, brand voice guidelines

The critical difference: unlike code, long-form writing requires maintaining context across 50,000–100,000+ words (novels, screenplays, research theses). Current context windows can handle this, but the quality of context use is what differentiates a thin wrapper from a real product.

6. Clinical / Medical Documentation

The Pain

Clinical documentation is the #1 cause of physician burnout. Doctors spend 2 hours on paperwork for every 1 hour of patient care. Documentation and charting is the #1 cited burnout contributor (16% of all providers; 26% of primary care; 23% of mental health). Nearly 50% of primary care physicians are currently experiencing burnout, and 55% have been burnt out for over a year. The pooled prevalence of EHR-related burnout among healthcare professionals is 40.4%.

The “pajama time” problem — completing notes, orders, and reviews outside normal hours — is eroding physician satisfaction and interfering with patient relationships.

Market Size & Landscape

AI-powered clinical documentation market
$3.11B (2024) → $4.01B (2025) → projected $10.91B (2029). CAGR: 28.4–28.8%
Ambient scribe market
Generated $600M in 2025 (+2.4x YoY)
Nuance DAX market share
33% of ambient scribes. Deployed to 77% of US hospitals. But startups captured ~70% of new market.

Key Players

Microsoft / Nuance DAX Copilot
Microsoft acquired Nuance for $18.8B (2022, second-largest acquisition after LinkedIn at $26.2B). DAX Copilot cuts documentation time by 50%. Deployed at 77% of US hospitals. 33% ambient scribe market share. Now integrated with Epic. The 800-pound gorilla.
Abridge
Valued at $5.3B after $300M Series E (June 2025, led by a16z). Hit $100M ARR in May 2025, up from $60M at end of 2024. Contracted ARR: $117M in Q1 2025. Total funding: $600M+. One of the largest health tech deals of 2025.
Suki AI
$70M Series D (Oct 2024) at $500M valuation. Total funding: $165M. AI clinical assistant for dictation, ambient notes, code recommendations, and medical Q&A. Founded 2017.
DeepScribe
Raised $61M total. Estimated $180M valuation (July 2023). Specialty-specific workflows. Fine-tuned LLMs + task-specific models trained on millions of labeled patient conversations.
Ambience Healthcare
Captured significant share of new ambient scribe market alongside Abridge.

Bootstrapper Assessment

Willingness to pay
Extremely High. Physicians will pay almost anything to reduce paperwork. The ROI is: more patients seen + less burnout + better work-life balance.
Bootstrapper viability
Very Low. HIPAA compliance alone is a massive barrier. You need BAAs with every cloud provider, SOC 2, HITRUST certification, and integration with EHR systems (Epic, Cerner, etc.) which are notoriously difficult to integrate with. The incumbents have raised billions collectively. Microsoft paid $18.8B for its position. The regulatory moat is enormous. Patient data handling requirements make it nearly impossible to bootstrap.
Gap to exploit
Possibly: a tool for private-practice specialists in a single specialty (dermatology, psychiatry) that focuses on note templates + AI refinement without ambient listening (avoiding the hardest technical problem). But even this faces HIPAA headwinds.

7. Screenwriting & Playwriting

The Pain

Screenwriters struggle with outlining, structure, rewrites, and the sheer volume of formatting requirements (industry-standard screenplay format). The creative process is iterative — scripts go through 10–20+ drafts. Final Draft, the industry standard for decades, is expensive ($249 one-time) and hasn’t innovated meaningfully. Writers also struggle with character consistency, dialogue quality, and story structure across 90–120 pages.

Market Size & Landscape

Screen & script writing software market
$185.78M (2025) → projected $412.84M (2030). CAGR: 17.32%
WGA membership
~17,000 members (WGA West, 2025). Only 1–2% of screenwriters make a full-time living solely from screenwriting.
Typical WGA earnings
Average WGA member: $5,000–$10,000/yr from screenwriting. Guild writers on studio projects: $100,000–$500,000 per script. Massive bimodal distribution.
Industry contraction
Number of working WGA screenwriters declined between 2020 and 2024, compounded by the 2023 strike and the strike-impacted 2023–24 season.

Key Players

Final Draft
$249 one-time purchase. Industry standard — used by “95% of film and television productions.” Dominant brand recognition but widely considered bloated and outdated.
Arc Studio Pro
Berlin-based, founded 2017. Described as “Hollywood’s fastest-growing screenwriting software.” Free for up to 2 scripts. Essentials: $69/yr. Pro: $99/yr. Real-time collaboration. Raised small round from Boost VC (not bootstrapped). Team of 1–10.
Highland 2
Created by screenwriter John August. Mac-only. $49.99. Minimalist “Fountain” plain-text format.
WriterSolo / Fade In
Lower-cost alternatives. Fade In: $79.95 one-time.

The WGA AI Problem

The WGA’s 2023 contract explicitly states that AI-generated text cannot qualify as “literary material”, ensuring human authorship remains central. Studios and the WGA commit to semi-annual meetings to review AI use. This means any AI tool for screenwriting must position itself as an assistant that helps the human writer, not a generator that replaces them. This is actually favorable for a “Cursor for Writing” approach — Cursor doesn’t replace programmers either.

Bootstrapper Assessment

Willingness to pay
Low to Medium. Most screenwriters are broke ($5K–$10K/yr). The 17,000 WGA members are the only real paying market. Even at $99/yr (Arc Studio pricing), 17,000 * $99 = $1.68M TAM ceiling from professionals. Aspiring screenwriters add volume but have less money.
Bootstrapper viability
Medium. Low barrier to entry (no regulatory requirements). But tiny professional market, WGA AI restrictions, and creative resistance to AI. Arc Studio is already executing the “modern alternative to Final Draft” play at $69–$99/yr with VC backing.
Gap to exploit
An AI-powered “story structure coach” that helps with outlining, character arcs, and scene-level beat sheets (where AI adds value without writing dialogue). Position as “Save the Cat! + AI” rather than “AI writes your script.” $15–$29/mo for aspiring writers. The larger market is the millions of aspiring screenwriters, not the 17K professionals.

8. Academic Research Writing

The Pain

The “publish or perish” pressure is intensifying. 62% of researchers view publication pressure as a frequent contributor to irreproducibility. Over 50% of early-career academics report chronic exhaustion tied to publication quotas. Retraction rates have risen 10x — from 1 in 5,000 papers (2002) to 1 in 500 (2023), with 10,000+ papers retracted globally in 2023 alone. Wiley reported a 25% increase in submissions in Q1 2025.

Researchers spend huge amounts of time on: literature review, writing in a second language (English), formatting for specific journals, managing citations, and navigating the submission/revision cycle. Just one-third of researchers believe academic reward systems are working well.

Market Size & Landscape

Papers published per year
Over 5.14 million academic articles/yr (2022, including surveys, reviews, proceedings). Scopus reports 2.5M+ research papers specifically.
Growth
Number of indexed articles increased by 897,000 between 2016 and 2022.
Researchers worldwide
Estimated 9–10 million active researchers globally. US produces ~55,000 S&E doctorates/yr.

Key Players

Overleaf
Part of Digital Science (invested/acquired 2014). 20M+ users. Revenue: ~$9.1M (2025, other estimates $15–$25M). 83-person team. Merged with ShareLaTeX (2017). Pricing: Free tier, Standard at €19/mo, Professional at €39/mo. The dominant collaborative LaTeX editor. Recently launched AI assistant (closed beta). Trusted by top research institutions and Fortune 500.
Jenni AI
AI academic writing assistant. $10M+ ARR (early 2025), up from $1.8M (2023) → $8M (2024). Estimated $25M valuation. Built by a 9-person team until late 2024 (23 by end of 2024). Helps with essays, papers, citations. This is the closest to a bootstrapped “Cursor for academic writing” success story.
Paperpal
AI writing assistant for researchers. Real-time language feedback, plagiarism detection, journal submission tools. $5.70/mo (Prime plan). Tailored for non-native English speakers.
Writefull
AI writing tool trained on peer-reviewed Open Access articles. $7.21/mo or $30.75/yr. Focused on academic English language improvement.
Citation managers (Zotero, Mendeley, EndNote)
Zotero: free, open-source, maintained by Corporation for Digital Scholarship. Mendeley: acquired by Elsevier. EndNote: commercial ($274 one-time). These are adjacent tools, not competitors, but any academic writing tool must integrate with them.

Bootstrapper Assessment

Willingness to pay
Low to Medium. Academics are notoriously price-sensitive. Many rely on institutional licenses. Individual budgets are tiny ($5–$40/mo range). But there are millions of them, and institutions pay for site licenses.
Bootstrapper viability
High. Jenni AI proved it: $10M ARR with 9 people. No regulatory barriers. The pain is real and quantifiable. The key insight: non-native English speakers are the largest and most desperate market segment. A tool that helps Chinese, Indian, Korean, and Brazilian researchers write publishable English is massively underserved. Overleaf’s AI features are still in closed beta. The market is huge (5M+ papers/yr, 10M+ researchers) and fragmented.
Gap to exploit
A Cursor-style academic writing environment that combines: (1) citation-aware AI autocomplete, (2) journal-specific formatting, (3) LaTeX/Markdown support, (4) Zotero integration, and (5) language refinement for non-native speakers. Price at $9–$19/mo individual, $99–$199/user/yr institutional. The Jenni AI playbook but with deeper editor integration.

9. Technical Documentation

The Pain

Nearly 80% of respondents say API documentation has become more important in the last five years. 82% of organizations now follow an API-first approach (Postman 2025 State of API Report). Yet more than half of teams say their biggest challenge is keeping docs up to date. The “docs as code” movement (using Git, Markdown, CI/CD for docs) is mainstream, but it creates a new problem: developers hate writing prose, and technical writers are expensive and scarce.

Market Size & Landscape

Software documentation tools market
Growing at 8.1% CAGR (2025–2030). Part of a $500B software development market (2025).
API documentation specifically
25% of organizations are fully API-first. Every SaaS company needs API docs. This is millions of potential customers.

Key Players

Mintlify
$10M ARR (end of 2025), up 10x from $1M (end of 2024). $18M Series A (Sep 2024, a16z). Total funding: $21.7M. 10,000+ companies onboarded (up from 1,000 in late 2023). Customers include Anthropic, Microsoft, Coinbase. Acquired Trieve (RAG infrastructure) in July 2025. The fastest-growing player in developer docs.
GitBook
Founded 2014, Lyon. 450,000+ users. Premium: $65/mo + $12/user. Ultimate: $249/mo. Git Sync with GitHub. AI-powered search on paid plans. Average customer spend: ~$15,000/yr. Strong developer brand recognition.
ReadMe
$10.7M revenue (June 2024). ~84 employees. Raised $10.1M (Series A, 2019, Accel-led). Focused specifically on API documentation. Customers include Yelp, IBM, Microsoft, Intercom.
Docusaurus (Meta)
Free, open-source static site generator. Used by Meta (React, GraphQL), Microsoft (Azure), PayPal, Shopify, Figma. The “default choice” for open-source project docs. Not a competitor to hosted solutions but sets the baseline expectations.
Document360
Starting at $99/mo. Knowledge base and API documentation.
SwaggerHub
API documentation specifically. Starting at $75/user/mo.

Bootstrapper Assessment

Willingness to pay
Medium to High. Companies pay $65–$249/mo (GitBook), $99/mo+ (Document360), $75/user/mo (SwaggerHub). Developer tools buyers are accustomed to paying for quality.
Bootstrapper viability
Medium. Mintlify’s explosive growth (1x → 10x ARR in one year) shows the market is hot, but also that well-funded competitors are moving fast. The open-source baseline (Docusaurus, MkDocs) is free and good enough for many. Differentiation must come from AI features (auto-generating docs from code, keeping docs in sync with API changes, auto-updating examples). The “Cursor for docs” angle would mean an editor that understands your codebase and can draft/update documentation contextually.
Gap to exploit
A self-hosted, open-source documentation platform with AI features (the “Plausible of docs”). Mintlify and GitBook are hosted SaaS; many companies want docs in their own infrastructure. Combine Docusaurus-quality output with AI-powered writing assistance and charge $29–$99/mo for the AI layer on top of an open-source base.

10. Grant Writing

The Pain

Grant writing is repetitive, high-stakes, and brutally time-consuming. Success rates are 10–30% (Grant Professionals Association). For federal grants, small businesses get approved 10–20% of the time; nonprofits ~25%. Most organizations submit 3–10 applications per year, with 16% submitting 31+ applications. The work is highly repetitive: the same organizational boilerplate, the same impact narratives, reformatted for each funder’s specific requirements.

Market Size & Landscape

Federal grants (US)
$1.82 trillion in total financial assistance (FY 2024). 145,831 awards.
Foundation grantmaking
Surpassed $100B for the third straight year (2024). 86,000+ grantmaking entities (92% independent foundations).
Nonprofits receiving grants
~100,000+ nonprofits awarded $303B annually from government grants. 35,000+ rely on grants for 50%+ of revenue.
Total US nonprofits
~1.5M registered nonprofits. 30% report receiving government grant funding.
Grant writer costs
Entry-level: $20–$35/hr. Experienced: $60–$125/hr. Federal specialists: $150–$250/hr. Simple foundation proposal: $500–$2,500. Complex federal grant: $3,000–$7,500+. Full-time in-house: ~$63,000/yr. Monthly retainers: $500–$5,500/mo.

Key Players

Instrumentl
Raised $55M from Summit Partners (April 2025). Founded 2015. 4,500+ customers. Helped customers win $1B+ and manage $6B+ in grants. Database of 400,000+ funders and 20,000+ active grants. Pricing: $179–$899/mo. AI features: Prospecting Assistant, Apply (extracts content from previous applications).
GrantStation
$699/yr (specials as low as $199). 15,000+ curated grants, 150,000+ funding profiles.
GrantBoost
AI grant writing platform. Guides users through surveys, generates tailored proposals. Free tier, Pro at $19.99/mo, Teams at $29.99/mo. Funding status unknown but pricing suggests bootstrapped or lightly funded.
Grantable
AI-powered grantwriting tool featured by GrantStation. Positions as “leveling the playing field for nonprofits.”

Bootstrapper Assessment

Willingness to pay
Medium. Nonprofits are budget-constrained but already paying $500–$7,500 per proposal for human grant writers. A $20–$100/mo AI tool that reduces grant writing time by 50%+ is an easy sell. But the buyer (nonprofit ED or development director) is cost-conscious.
Bootstrapper viability
High. No regulatory barriers. The repetitive nature of grant writing (same boilerplate, different formats) is perfectly suited to AI. GrantBoost at $19.99/mo shows the bootstrapped price point. The key moat: a database of successful grants by funder, which improves over time. 100,000+ nonprofits needing grants * $20/mo = $24M TAM at the low end.
Gap to exploit
A “Cursor for grant writing” that: (1) stores your org’s boilerplate once, (2) understands each funder’s requirements, (3) generates first drafts from your previous successful applications, (4) tracks deadlines and submission requirements, and (5) learns from your wins/losses. The Instrumentl approach is “find grants”; the gap is “write grants.” Price at $29–$79/mo.

11. Real Estate Listing Descriptions

The Pain

Real estate agents need to write property descriptions for every listing. The typical agent handles 10 transactions per year (2024 NAR data). With 1.45M+ NAR members, that’s roughly 14.5M transactions/yr, each needing a listing description. Agents are salespeople, not writers. Descriptions need to be accurate (MLS compliance), compelling, and SEO-optimized. Most agents hate writing them and either produce terrible copy or spend too long agonizing over it.

Market Size & Landscape

NAR members
1,453,690 (May 2025), above the 1.4M forecast
Transactions per agent
Median: 10 transactions/yr. Median sales volume: $2.5M/agent
Existing home sales
~4M+ annualized rate (2025). Each listing needs a description, photos, etc.

Key Players

ListingAI
Created 59,000+ listings in 2025. 31,000+ users across 20+ countries. Free AI listing description generator.
Restb.ai
Analyzes property photos to extract 700+ data points. Generates SEO-optimized descriptions. ADA compliance (alt-text). Integrates with MLS systems.
Write.Homes
AI for MLS listings, social posts, neighborhood guides, email templates. SEO optimization, multilingual support.
Placester
Real estate marketing platform with AI description generation built in.

Bootstrapper Assessment

Willingness to pay
Low. Many free tools already exist (ListingAI is free). Agents are accustomed to free tools from their brokerage/MLS. The median agent income is modest. Hard to charge more than $10–$29/mo for listing descriptions alone.
Bootstrapper viability
Low to Medium. The problem is too simple. ChatGPT/Claude can write listing descriptions for free. The tools that exist are already free or cheap. It’s a “feature, not a product” problem. ListingAI has 31K users but is free — monetization is the challenge. The MLS integration angle is interesting but requires navigating hundreds of regional MLS systems.
Gap to exploit
Not listing descriptions alone, but a “marketing autopilot for agents” that generates descriptions, social posts, property websites, virtual tour scripts, and email campaigns from a single photo upload + MLS data feed. Bundle the description into a $49–$99/mo marketing suite. But this becomes a broader real estate marketing tool, not a “Cursor for writing.”

12. Newsletter / Blog Content Creation

The Pain

Solo newsletter operators spend 30+ hours/month researching, writing, and producing a single high-quality issue. One creator reported going from 4.5 hours per newsletter to 2 hours after AI optimization. Burnout is the #1 cited challenge among successful creators. The bottleneck is always content creation — not distribution, not monetization, not audience growth. Writing is the hard part.

Market Size & Landscape

Substack
$45M annualized revenue (July 2025). ~$450M in writer gross revenue. 5M paid subscriptions. Takes 10% of all paid subscriptions.
beehiiv
$32M annual revenue. 140,000 newsletters/sites (60% growth in 2025). 3B+ emails/mo. 350M monthly readers. beehiiv users earned $45M on-platform + ~$100M off-platform.
Ghost
Open-source, nonprofit. Powers many independent publishers.
Creator earnings
Paid subscriptions on beehiiv: $19M in 2025 (up 138% from $8M in 2024). Median time to first dollar for 2025 newsletters: 66 days. Top earners: Matt Navarra (Geekout) earned $25K in one month from Boosts. Yaroslav Sobko (Cyber Corsairs) made $65K over 7 months from sponsorships.
Newsletter count
beehiiv alone has 140,000 newsletters. Substack has millions of publications. The total newsletter market is enormous and growing.

AI Tools Already in Use

Newsletter creators are already heavy users of ChatGPT, Claude, and generic AI writing tools. The problem: generic AI produces generic content. The opportunity is AI that understands your voice, your audience, your back catalog, and your specific topic area.

Bootstrapper Assessment

Willingness to pay
Medium. Newsletter creators who are monetizing ($19M in paid subs on beehiiv alone) will pay for tools that save time. But many are just starting out and have no budget. The sweet spot: creators earning $1K+/mo who value their time. Probably $15–$49/mo range.
Bootstrapper viability
Medium to High. No regulatory barriers. The market is huge and growing. But the competition is fierce: every AI writing tool (Jasper, Copy.ai, Writesonic, etc.) targets this market. The differentiation has to be deep newsletter-specific features: voice training from your archive, audience segmentation-aware writing, performance data integration (“this type of intro gets 2x more opens”), and format-aware generation (roundups, analyses, tutorials).
Gap to exploit
A “Cursor for newsletters” that plugs into beehiiv/Substack/Ghost via API, trains on your existing archive, understands your voice, and provides inline AI assistance (not generation from scratch). Think: autocomplete that sounds like you, research summaries from your curated sources, performance-informed suggestions. Not a “write my newsletter” button (readers will notice and unsubscribe) but a “help me write my newsletter faster while keeping my voice” tool. $19–$39/mo.

13. Corporate Communications / PR

The Pain

Corporate communications teams write press releases, investor updates, internal memos, crisis communications, executive speeches, and earnings call scripts. The pain: consistency of messaging across channels, compliance review cycles, version control nightmares, approval workflows involving legal and C-suite, and the need to produce content quickly when news breaks.

Market Size & Landscape

PR tools market
Estimated $3–$5.5B (2025, varies by source). Projected $28.9–$32.9B by 2033–2034. CAGR: 9–10%.
AI adoption in PR
62% of new PR solutions launched 2023–2025 feature AI automation. 44% include predictive analytics.

Key Players

Cision / PR Newswire
Largest PR distribution network. Reaches 440,000+ newsrooms across 170+ countries. Founded 1954. Full-suite PR platform (monitoring, distribution, analytics).
Muck Rack
Media relations platform. AI-powered journalist discovery, social monitoring. Recently added press release distribution via GlobeNewswire integration. Caters to mid-market teams.
Meltwater
Media intelligence and social listening. Enterprise-focused.
Prowly, Prezly
Smaller PR tools. Prowly acquired by Semrush.

Bootstrapper Assessment

Willingness to pay
High. Corporate comms budgets are substantial. Companies pay $500–$5,000+/mo for PR tools. The buyer is a VP of Communications or CMO with real budget authority.
Bootstrapper viability
Low to Medium. The PR tools market is dominated by large players (Cision, Meltwater) with deep integrations. The writing part of PR is actually a small piece — distribution, monitoring, and measurement are where the money is. A standalone “AI press release writer” is a feature, not a product. The full PR workflow (write → distribute → monitor → report) requires significant infrastructure.
Gap to exploit
Not writing press releases, but internal corporate communications: a tool that helps comms teams maintain brand voice across all channels, manages approval workflows, generates first drafts of internal announcements, and ensures regulatory compliance in investor communications. Enterprise sale, $99–$299/mo per team. But this is a long sales cycle.

14. Compliance & Regulatory Writing

The Pain

Every company subject to SOX, GDPR, HIPAA, SOC 2, ISO 27001, PCI DSS, or other frameworks must maintain extensive documentation: policies, procedures, risk assessments, audit evidence, control descriptions, and remediation plans. This documentation is tedious, repetitive, and high-stakes. Missing or inadequate documentation = audit failures = fines + liability. Most companies rely on consultants ($200–$400/hr) or internal compliance teams.

Market Size & Landscape

Compliance software market
$36.22B (2025) → projected $65.77B (2030). CAGR: 12.67%
RegTech market
$6.3B (2022) → projected $23.8B (2030)

Key Players

Vanta
$220M ARR (July 2025), up from $152M (end of 2024). Valued at $4.15B after $150M Series D (July 2025). Total funding: $504M. Founded 2018. Focus: SOC 2, HIPAA, ISO 27001. Automation of evidence collection, risk monitoring, audit prep.
Drata
Raised $328M+. 7,000+ customers worldwide. Strong on customization and deeper automation checks. Competes directly with Vanta.
Hyperproof
Supports wide range of frameworks: SOC 2, ISO 27001, NIST, PCI, SOX.
Sprinto
Compliance automation for startups, primarily SOC 2 and ISO 27001.
Netwrix Auditor
IT compliance and security. HIPAA, GDPR, SOX tracking.

Bootstrapper Assessment

Willingness to pay
Very High. Companies pay $10K–$100K+/yr for compliance tools (Vanta, Drata). Compliance is mandatory, not optional. The ROI is avoiding fines (GDPR: up to 4% of global revenue; HIPAA: up to $2M per violation).
Bootstrapper viability
Low. Vanta ($220M ARR, $4.15B valuation) and Drata ($328M raised) dominate. These platforms are not primarily writing tools — they’re automation platforms for evidence collection, monitoring, and audit prep. The writing part (generating policy documents, control descriptions) is a small feature within a much larger product. Building just the writing piece is a “feature, not a product” problem. The enterprise sales cycle is also long and expensive.
Gap to exploit
A narrow play: AI-powered policy document generator for SMBs that don’t yet use Vanta/Drata. Generate SOC 2 policies, HIPAA policies, privacy policies, and security procedures for $49–$149/mo. Target the long tail of companies that need basic compliance docs but can’t afford $20K+/yr tools. Think “Termly/iubenda but for internal compliance documents.”

Vertical Ranking for Bootstrapped “Cursor for Writing”

Scoring each vertical on five dimensions (1–5 scale): pain intensity, willingness to pay, bootstrapper viability, market size accessible to a small team, and competitive white space.

Rank Vertical Pain WTP Bootstrap TAM Access White Space Total /25
1 Grant Writing 5 4 5 4 4 22
2 Academic Research Writing 5 3 5 5 4 22
3 Technical Documentation 4 4 4 4 3 19
4 Newsletter / Blog 4 3 4 5 2 18
5 Legal Brief Writing 5 5 2 3 3 18
6 Corporate Comms / PR 3 4 3 3 3 16
7 Screenwriting 4 2 4 2 3 15
8 Compliance Writing 4 5 2 2 2 15
9 Real Estate Listings 2 2 3 4 2 13
10 Clinical Documentation 5 5 1 1 1 13

Top 3 Recommendations

1. Grant Writing (Score: 22/25)

The best opportunity. 100,000+ nonprofits need grants. The work is highly repetitive (same boilerplate, different formats). Success rates are low (10–30%), creating urgency. Grant writers charge $500–$7,500+ per proposal, making a $29–$79/mo AI tool an easy ROI. No regulatory barriers. GrantBoost at $19.99/mo proves the bootstrapped price point works. Instrumentl’s $55M raise proves the market is real, but Instrumentl is a finding tool — the writing tool is the gap. The Cursor model (context-aware editor that learns from your previous successful applications) is a perfect fit.

2. Academic Research Writing (Score: 22/25)

Jenni AI proved this works: $10M ARR with 9 people. That is the ultimate bootstrapped validation. 5M+ papers published per year, 10M+ researchers worldwide, and the publish-or-perish pressure is only intensifying. Non-native English speakers are the massive underserved segment. Overleaf has 20M+ users but just launched AI features (still in beta). The pricing sweet spot ($9–$19/mo) means you need volume, but the volume exists. Integrate with Zotero, support LaTeX/Markdown, and offer citation-aware AI autocomplete. The Jenni playbook is proven.

3. Technical Documentation (Score: 19/25)

Mintlify’s 10x growth ($1M → $10M ARR in one year) proves the market is exploding. 82% of orgs are API-first, and every API needs docs. The “docs as code” movement means developers are already comfortable with editor-based workflows (the Cursor model). The gap: Mintlify and GitBook are hosted SaaS for publishing docs, not writing them. A Cursor-style editor that understands your codebase, generates docs from code context, keeps docs in sync with API changes, and works within a “docs as code” Git workflow would be genuinely new. Self-hosted option for enterprises who want docs in their own infrastructure.

The Meta-Insight

The verticals where “Cursor for Writing” works best share three characteristics:

  1. Structured + repetitive writing (grants, academic papers, API docs) — not free-form creative writing
  2. Context matters deeply (your previous grants, your codebase, your citations) — generic AI is not enough
  3. The writer is not primarily a writer (researchers, developers, nonprofit staff) — they need writing help, not creative inspiration

Avoid verticals where: (a) regulation makes bootstrapping impossible (clinical, legal), (b) the writing task is too simple for a dedicated tool (real estate listings), or (c) the professional market is too small (screenwriting’s 17K WGA members).

Sources

Data gathered February 2026. Key sources by vertical: