Don't ask 'what to sell' first, ask what problems the user has

How to Discover New High-Profit Opportunities from Adjacent Directions Like Oral Health, Smoking Cessation Services, and Cigar Tasting

I increasingly don't believe in the question "Is there still anything new in tobacco content?"

Because once you fix your gaze strictly on tobacco products, brands, and information, what you usually see is the same set of demands: price, authenticity, channels, product knowledge, policy changes, consumption experience. The truly profitable spaces often appear in the problems users encounter *after* they leave the "tobacco product" mindset.

A smoker may actually care about bad breath, teeth, gums, and social image. Someone preparing to quit smoking may not lack "quitting knowledge" — they lack someone to remind them every day. A person interested in cigar culture may not only want to buy tobacco; they may want to understand history, origin, storage, tools, space, social etiquette, and tasting culture.

This is what I understand as "adjacent opportunities."

It's not about repackaging the tobacco business, but re-examining the entire demand chain that users form around tobacco.

WHO's 2025 oral health data indicates that tobacco use is a major risk factor for periodontal disease, and tobacco, alcohol, and betel nut are all major risk factors for oral cancer. Global oral diseases affect billions of people.

The inspiration for operators is not to "rush to sell oral products," but that: **the original tobacco users may have a much longer consumption chain than the tobacco products themselves.**

My judgment is clear: if I were to take a small budget to find new profits, I would prioritize testing "health issues + behavior management + digital services" rather than directly entering tobacco product sales.

1. Don't Ask "What to Sell" First, Ask What Problems the User Has

A common mistake I used to make in demand analysis was jumping straight to product ideas upon seeing a user group.

Seeing a smoking population, I'd immediately think of tobacco content, smoking tools, memberships, and communities.

But the correct order should be reversed.

Ask first:

Why does this person keep generating demand?

A daily smoker may face several long-term problems simultaneously:

What's truly worth studying here are those problems that **recur, cause clear pain, and that users are willing to pay for solutions.**

That's why I believe "adjacent directions" are more worth pursuing than "tobacco content itself."

WHO still lists "helping quit tobacco" as a core intervention for tobacco control, noting that counseling and medication can significantly increase the chances of successful quitting.

More interestingly, WHO released a digital intervention toolkit for tobacco cessation on chat platforms in 2025, featuring a 42-day quit challenge including behavior trigger identification, habit building, privacy, and digital platform implementation.

This shows one thing:

The commercial value of smoking cessation services is not limited to hospitals — it also exists in "ongoing management."

Of course, content involving medical diagnosis, treatment, and medication must be undertaken by qualified professional institutions. Content entrepreneurs can better position themselves in clearly bounded areas such as health education, behavior recording, reminders, companionship, information services, and referral to professional institutions.

2. Why I Would Test "Oral Health" First

If given 1000 yuan to validate an adjacent market, I'd probably start with oral health.

The reason is simple:

It's close enough to the user's real pain points.

Lung health is too abstract for ordinary users.

"The risk increases by X% after 20 years" — many people read it and forget.

But tooth discoloration, bad breath, and bleeding gums are problems users can feel today.

CDC data shows that US adult smokers have significantly higher rates of tooth decay than never-smokers, and notes that tobacco use is associated with oral cancer, periodontal disease, and other issues.

I would break this market into three layers.

The first layer is health education.

For example:

This type of content builds trust.

The second layer is tools and services.

For example: health records, reminders, oral care plans, follow-up reminders, examination item explanations, etc.

The most important boundary here: **ordinary content services must not be disguised as medical diagnosis.**

The third layer is professional service referral.

The content platform handles user education and demand identification. Users who truly need examination or treatment enter the formal healthcare system.

At this point, the business model transforms from "selling an article" to:

Content acquisition → Health education → User screening → Service booking/referral → Compliant service revenue.

The biggest advantage of this model is that user demand is not artificially manufactured.

Bleeding gums are a pain point.

Bad breath is a pain point.

Dental problems are a pain point.

You don't need to educate users on "why you should have this pain point."

3. What Can Actually Be Charged in Smoking Cessation Services Is Often Not Knowledge

I am very clear about this point.

Quitting smoking content is cheap; ongoing management during the quitting process is what can generate paid value.

There are already countless articles online about "how to quit smoking."

So if someone tells me:

"I'm going to create a paid smoking cessation knowledge course, priced at 199 yuan."

My first reaction is not about market size, but to ask:

Why wouldn't users just search for it?

If the answer is just "my course is more professional," I wouldn't invest.

But if the product becomes:

"A 42-day behavior management service."

Then the logic changes.

Users record daily:

This is not a knowledge product — it's a continuously used service.

WHO's digital tobacco cessation toolkit itself adopted a 42-day challenge design, which at least shows that "continuous behavioral intervention" is a service structure worth studying.

Suppose I run a small-scale test in April 2026.

The account has 8000 followers.

I don't run ads; I first publish 5 articles:

Then set up a 49-yuan "7-Day Behavior Recording Experience."

Not treatment.

Not a promise to "guarantee quitting."

Just:

If out of 8000 followers, only 100 click, that's not surprising.

Suppose 20 out of 100 are willing to pay 49 yuan:

Income: 980 yuan.

If the total test cost is controlled within 500 yuan, this experiment is still worth continuing.

But if only 1 out of 100 buys the 49-yuan product, I wouldn't immediately conclude "the smoking cessation market has no money."

I would first doubt the product.

Because "49 yuan for quitting knowledge" and "49 yuan for 7 days of continuous companionship" are fundamentally different.

4. What Should Really Be Tested Is "Outcome Management"

I have a very simple principle when making business judgments:

Users pay for results, not for information.

The same applies to oral health.

"What is periodontitis" can be easily obtained for free.

"My gums have been bleeding recently, what should I do" is a specific demand.

"I've quit smoking for 21 days, why do I feel changes in my mouth" is an ongoing demand.

"I booked a dental appointment but can't understand the examination report" is also a service demand.

So what content operators should most look for is:

The gap between users knowing the problem and solving it.

That gap is often the business opportunity.

5. Cigar Tasting: I Wouldn't Prioritize "Selling Tobacco"

Cigars are a direction that easily gives entrepreneurs illusions.

Because they appear to have high unit prices, strong user spending power, and naturally carry cultural, social, and lifestyle attributes.

But I wouldn't put my first money into tobacco product sales.

The reason is practical: health risks, tobacco regulation, advertising restrictions, and platform rules can all become hard constraints on the business model. WHO's 2026 updated guidelines continue to emphasize broad restrictions on tobacco advertising, promotion, and sponsorship, with digital channels and cross-border communication also under regulatory scrutiny.

So what I'm more interested in is:

Why do cigar users enjoy this scenario?

If you temporarily remove the tobacco product, what remains might include:

There's a very interesting business judgment here:

What users may be buying is not just tobacco, but a whole set of identity and experience.

Therefore, a content team can certainly study "non-tobacco experiences."

For example, high-end aroma culture, coffee and woody aroma experiences, tea culture, spatial experiences, collection knowledge, etc.

This is not about quietly replacing tobacco advertising with another name, but seriously studying the cultural consumption needs behind the original user group.

These two must be clearly distinguished.

6. I Would Build a 40-Point Model for Adjacent Opportunities

I don't decide investment based on feeling.

I score each opportunity.

|---|---|---|

Total score: 40 points.

My internal standard is fairly straightforward:

30+ points: Worth investing in testing.

25-30 points: Only small experiments.

Below 25 points: Don't do it for now.

For example, a "digital smoking cessation companion service":

Demand intensity: 5

Willingness to pay: 4

Unit price: 3

Repurchase rate: 4

Delivery cost: 4

Acquisition difficulty: 3

Regulatory risk: 3

Team capability match: 4

Total: 30 points.

Testable.

But a project that directly promotes "cigar product promotion account," even if user spending power appears high, will quickly drop to below 25 points once regulatory and platform risks are scored low.

I'd rather not do it.

High-profit opportunities must satisfy both commercial value and sustainability.

Looking only at unit price is the easiest trap to fall into.

7. I Would Use 1000 Yuan for a 7-Day Experiment

If I were to validate a new direction right now, I wouldn't first register a company, develop an app, or hire customer service.

I would first run a minimal experiment.

Day 1: Identify One Pain Point

For example:

"Ready to quit, but especially prone to relapse after meals."

Don't write it as:

"Help users live a healthy life."

Too broad.

It must be small enough to be validated.

Day 2: Create 3 Articles

Each article solves only one problem.

Don't rush to sell.

Observe:

Day 3: Talk to 50 Real Users

I wouldn't even ask first:

"Are you willing to buy?"

That question has very low value.

I would ask:

The last question is especially important.

People who have already spent money are far more valuable than those who just say they're willing to pay.

Day 4: Create a Low-Price Product

For example, 49 yuan.

Not to make money.

But to validate:

Whether users are willing to put real money on the table.

Day 5: Start Delivery

Handle it manually.

No system development.

No complex features.

Even using spreadsheets, forms, and message reminders is fine.

Day 6: Calculate the Numbers

Suppose 100 people enter the page.

20 leave contact information.

8 pay.

Income: 392 yuan.

If advertising and labor costs total 300 yuan, the profit is only 92 yuan, but this experiment has already produced an important signal:

8% page-to-payment conversion.

Then continue observing the second week.

Day 7: Decide to Continue or Stop

If user completion rate is only 20%, the service design may have problems.

If user completion rate reaches 70%, and someone proactively asks:

"Is there a 30-day version?"

That's a very strong signal.

Because users are starting to request longer-term needs.

8. The Kind of Failure I Fear Most: Spending 5000 Yuan on a Bunch of "Interested"

I've designed simulation post-mortems for this type of failed test.

Suppose a team does "health management for smoking populations."

Budget: 5000 yuan.

Launch content.

Get 300 consultation users.

Looks good.

80 out of 300 leave contact information.

The team is very excited.

Only 8 actually pay.

Unit price: 99 yuan.

Total revenue: 792 yuan.

5000 yuan yields 792 yuan.

The team concludes:

"This market has no commercial value."

I disagree.

Because this experiment actually only proved one thing:

This acquisition method and product combination didn't form a commercial closed loop.

Let's break it down further:

300 consultation users.

80 leave contact information.

8 pay.

Consultation-to-payment conversion: only 2.67%.

Why?

Maybe the ads attracted "curious users."

Maybe the content promised too much.

Maybe the 99-yuan product lacked credibility.

Maybe users didn't think they needed long-term management.

Maybe users were concerned about medical issues and didn't know what the service actually was.

So in the second round, I wouldn't add another 5000 yuan.

I'd only spend 500-1000 yuan.

Narrow the product from "health management" to:

"7-day smoking behavior recording + professional material explanation + manual feedback."

Test again.

The most dangerous thing in entrepreneurship is not failure, but repeating the same mistake with a bigger budget.

9. Judging High-Profit Opportunities: I Only Look at Five Numbers

What ultimately decides whether I expand investment is not readership.

It's five numbers:

Customer acquisition cost.

How much did it actually cost to acquire one paying user?

First-order gross profit.

After deducting labor, platform, and delivery costs, how much is left?

Repurchase rate.

Are users willing to continue?

Service time.

How much manual labor does one user actually consume?

Referral rate.

Do users actively bring in new users?

For example:

Customer acquisition cost: 30 yuan.

First purchase: 99 yuan.

Delivery cost: 25 yuan.

First-order contribution: 44 yuan.

Looks good.

But if only 2% of users repurchase, don't rush to scale.

Conversely, if:

Acquisition cost: 35 yuan.

First purchase: 99 yuan.

Delivery cost: 30 yuan.

First contribution: 34 yuan.

In the second month, 40% of users buy a 129-yuan service.

Then the model is completely different.

What's truly worth scaling is not the business with the highest unit price, but the business where user lifetime value is clearly higher than acquisition cost.

10. What's Most Worth Paying Attention to Is Actually "Cross-Border Entry Points"

I believe the truly interesting opportunities in the future are not about making "tobacco content" narrower and narrower, but about connecting user problems.

For example:

Tobacco content → Oral health education.

Tobacco content → Smoking cessation behavior management.

Smoking cessation content → Digital companionship.

Oral health → Formal medical service referral.

Cigar culture → Non-tobacco lifestyle culture.

Aroma experience → Tea, coffee, woody aroma experiences.

High-end social → Membership-based cultural activities.

There's a very important shift here:

Your competitors are no longer just other tobacco accounts.

You start entering larger markets like health services, lifestyle, membership services, digital tools, and cultural consumption.

But at the same time, you must also accept a fact:

Crossing borders is not about bypassing regulations.

If a project's real purpose is still promoting tobacco products, just packaging the content as "culture," "tasting," or "healthy lifestyle," it may still involve regulatory issues related to tobacco advertising, promotion, or sponsorship. WHO FCTC Article 13 guidelines explicitly focus on direct and indirect promotion, as well as commercial communications that may have promotional effects.

So I prefer to do real demand migration, not packaging migration.

11. My Priority Order Would Be Like This

If I were starting from zero right now, my order wouldn't be:

Tobacco products → Cigar sales → Smoking tool sales.

I would prefer:

Layer 1: Health problem content.

First find the problems that truly pain users.

Layer 2: Behavior management services.

Turn free content into ongoing services.

Layer 3: Professional service connection.

Refer parts requiring medical or professional intervention to qualified institutions.

Layer 4: Lifestyle experience.

Study the cultural, social, and experiential needs users actually buy.

Layer 5: Digitalization.

Only develop tools after manual services have been validated with paying users.

The biggest advantage of this sequence is that every step controls investment.

If 1000 yuan can't validate it, don't invest 10000 yuan.

If 10000 yuan can't validate it, don't develop a 100000-yuan system.

12. What I'm Really Looking for Is Not "New Tobacco Industry Products"

What I'm really looking for is:

Problems on tobacco users that haven't been well solved yet.

These are two completely different ways of thinking.

If the user's problem is strong enough, the original industry boundary matters much less.

A smoker might first come to your content because of bleeding gums;

Then start paying attention to quitting smoking;

During the quitting process, need behavior recording;

Then start focusing on exercise, sleep, diet;

And finally become a long-term health service user.

The profit chain here already far exceeds the original tobacco content.

This is also where I believe "cross-border opportunities" truly hold value.

Not giving the tobacco business a prettier name.

But starting from the real problems users face every day, finding **services that are higher frequency, more essential, easier to repurchase, with lower marginal cost, and that can be legally and compliantly delivered.**

If a new project requires me to invest over 100,000 yuan first, I'm usually very cautious.

If only 1000 yuan is needed to validate:

Someone is willing to leave contact information.

Someone is willing to pay 49 yuan.

Someone is willing to buy a second time.

Someone is willing to actively recommend.

And service costs can continue to decline.

Then I'll start increasing the budget.

I'd rather spend 1000 yuan to get one real payment data point than spend 50000 yuan to get 100000 reads.

Because readership only proves someone saw you.

Payment, repurchase, and referral start to prove you've found a business.