From a fiction writer's point of view, it seems he is saying to be Stephen King over a Herman Melville. I'm not sure I agree. Melville made little money and died thinking he was a failure. Years later, his work Moby Dick was widely received as a great work of literary art. He was literally a starving artist. King, on the other hand, is a great writer who knows his market and knows how to craft the kinds of page-turners that people are addicted to.
It's true that taking the King path will get you money, but what if you care more about your contribution to society? What if that true gem just waiting inside you that you have to write turns out to be initially hated by the rest of the world? What if you just write organically instead of trying to find a target audience all the time? What comes of the story then?
Of course, realistically you don't want to cut off your own legs. A starving artist can't generate much art, but given the stupidity of our society right now, I wouldn't put it past them to "not get" most intelligent writing in the world. Twilight may have sold a crapload of copies, but that to me isn't a measure of how skilled or artistic the writer is. It's a measure of how well she knows her target audience. Sometimes the public needs to see controversial material. Sometimes the public needs to be exposed to things they don't like or don't want to hear, and to ignore that because you want to make more money off your art is in my opinion irresponsible.
Perhaps a better option is to just have a day job or alternate source of income, that way you won't feel the pressure to taint your work just to satisfy people who don't necessarily understand what you are trying to do or who aren't necessarily in your corner.