So, did you read the links and watch the videos?
I read the links and watched the first video. I'll start with the video.
The presenter is very articulate and intelligent. But there are some problems with using him to support your position.
First, he's not an impartial source. To be clear, I don't think that he's a scammer or anything like that. But his videos are an intermediate step in the very process he's describing in the video, in which people gradually move up a ladder toward things that are more and more profitable to him. So while I believe what he says, in general, I value sources of information more if their profit isn't tied to the view of reality that they're supporting. I had a lot of experience in education with people arguing for approaches when they sold products that only someone who used the approach would be interested in. Their information was never as accurate as that presented by more disinterested sources. Again, that's not to say I don't believe this guy, but I would value the testimony of someone not profiting from the approach more.
Second, (and far more important),
his approach is geared to nonfiction. This is clear from his use of language. He talks about teaching and helping people. He talks about progression from short-form content to longer forms, like guides and courses.
While there are some similarities between marketing nonfiction and marketing fiction, there are also some fundamental differences. One of the most obvious is that the value proposition is easier to prove, particularly for his kind of content. Watch his videos, be inspired to buy his coursework, and you'll make several times as much money--if you're writing nonfiction. From what I've seen, I would recommend his material to a writer selling income-boosting nonfiction. But it's questionable whether the same approach would transfer to fiction.
Consider the content hierarchy he uses. Well, you could use teasers from your work as the short-form content. You could use short stories as the medium form content for potential fans (like we do with reader magnets). But then what? At the top level, you're not selling guides or courses. You're selling novels. People hopefully enjoy your novels--but they don't make money from them.
Consider the differences on Substack. Celebrities aside, who's earning those hundreds of paid subscribers check marks? Mostly, it's people explaining how to make money on Substack, how to write more effectively, how to sell books more effectively--in other words, income-boosting nonfiction. Sometimes, the strategies are more general, but often they are designed to help people make money, not just with writing in general, but with the type of writing that they do themselves. And I've already spotted examples where people are pitching strategies that haven't worked for fiction in at least five years--but they still work for income-boosting nonfiction. That's because it's a different creature. There are some strategies that work for both, but that's far from all of them.
So when he talks about how he uses social media successfully, keep in mind that he has a different value proposition going.
I could say more, but I think you get the point. His system--and the anecdotes supporting it, are based on a different kind of writing than what many of us do.
As far as the two articles go, the first one doesn't really touch on our points of disagreement. Consistency is important, but the article doesn't say what that means for authors. Does it mean you must right only in the same genre? Not necessarily. Consistency in quality, in the feelings the material evokes, etc. might well be enough. Sure, some readers won't read every single thing we write because the may like some genres more than others. But we shouldn't assume they're such complete dumbasses that they can't tell the difference between genres and will feel betrayed when their favorite fantasy writer cranks out some science fiction. Some will skip it, but other readers will also be pulled in who would never have discovered you otherwise.
As far as the second article is concerned, it describes niches really well, but again, what's a niche for an author. If we write a science fiction, does that mean that all of our books must not only be science fiction but must also be set on Mars. Will readers feel betrayed if one is set on Venus? You see where I'm going. How narrow a niche needs to be can well be questioned. The examples given are generally pretty narrow. Ergonomic chairs for gamers is a good example. But there's a big difference between utilitarian products and creative ones. Ergononic chairs have a specific function, and it may make sense to buy from some who focuses entirely on that. But the gamers using those chairs may play different kinds of games. Individual gamers may play different kinds of games. They have functional requirements for their equipment, but that doesn't mean they have the same narrow focus on the content they play.
