I’m actually sorry about what I am going to say. Because I assume you mean good by publishing and your article probably contains a lot of good thoughts and advice.
I quite quickly stopped reading which I usually consider way too fast judgement. But I would like to give this feedback because it criticises your fundamental basis of the rest of the story.
You start with describing a couple that has savings to overcome a year without income. You describe that couple having a passion and being able to make that first step to focussing on that passion. After that that couple simply has a viral hit out of nowhere.
This basis is formed of a given situation and random events. You exclude the majority of your potential audience that would profit from an article like yours. I am afraid a lot of readers either haven’t recognized this or simply ignore it because it describes a situation a lot of people would love to be in. So they accept it. And they probably still are motivated by you story so it fulfills the job. But it leaves an empty space. The motivation is based on this randomness. This leads to a long-term frustration of those that are motivated by your article because they don’t know how to make that step to fulfil the basis of it. How could someone start being the best something if one is required to have that luck and chain of random events you describe?
I would’ve loved to read that part of the story on how to actually get there without relying on random events.
Maybe I jumped too quickly on this one. I really felt the need to reply to this.