With over 8 million subscribers and 2.7 billion views on YouTube, The Try Guys, one of YouTube's most established creator groups, have built an empire on the back of the platform's algorithm-driven success. But in a move that speaks volumes about the limitations of traditional social media monetization, they've launched their own subscription streaming service, 2nd Try.

"Having a business that is reliant on ads is very unstable and very unpredictable," Try Guys co-founder Zach Kornfeld told CNBC. "There's just so much that's out of your control, and we certainly experienced the worst of that. It's tenuous at best. Corrosive and explosive at worst. And it also forces you creatively to constantly optimize for things that are not always in your audience's best interest."

Kornfeld's words cut to the heart of the matter. The traditional model of creator monetization – reliant on brand partnerships, sponsored content, and advertising revenue – is increasingly seen as a shaky foundation on which to build a career. With a potential TikTok ban threatening to wipe out nearly $15 billion in annual revenue for small and medium businesses, and YouTube's ad revenue growth slowing, creators are seeking more reliable income sources in an increasingly volatile advertising market.

At first glance, the numbers paint a rosy picture. According to eMarketer, 41% of U.S. creators use their websites or blogs to connect directly with their fans. This direct relationship allows creators to bypass traditional gatekeepers and monetize their work on their own terms. The model has gained such traction that 15% of consumers now subscribe to their preferred creator's membership site, an 8% increase from the previous year.

While subscription models like 2nd Try offer a tempting alternative to the unpredictability of algorithm-driven platforms, they come with their own set of limitations that can stifle creator growth in subtle but significant ways.

By restricting access to their content, creators are effectively cutting themselves off from the vast ocean of potential fans who might stumble upon their work through social media, search engines, or word of mouth. Every piece of paywalled content is a missed opportunity for viral growth, a chance for a new fan to fall in love with a creator's work and spread the word.

While subscription models can provide a steady income for established creators, they also create a smaller potential audience compared to free, ad-supported content. The average consumer spends $133 a month on subscriptions, which amounts to about $1,600 a year, according to an ERP Today report. When you consider the vast array of subscription services vying for those dollars, it becomes clear that there's only so much subscription pie to go around.

As more creators adopt the subscription model, consumers are forced to make tough choices about where to allocate their limited subscription budgets. This creates a winner-take-all dynamic where a small number of top creators capture the lion's share of subscription revenue, while the majority struggle to gain traction.

Uncomfortable truth: the top 25 highest-earning Substack newsletters generate more than $22 million annually, according to Substack's own data. While it's an impressive dollar amount, it exposes a concentration of success at the very top of the creator pyramid.

The pressure to consistently produce content to retain subscribers can lead to creative paralysis. Even Jack Conte, CEO of Patreon, warns: "The pressure to deliver can stifle creativity and lead to creator burnout."

When a creator's livelihood depends on keeping a core group of subscribers happy, there's an inevitable temptation to play it safe, potentially limiting long-term growth and innovation.

The average subscription churn rate is 4.1%, according to data from Recurly. In a business model built on recurring revenue, this can be a significant challenge. Additionally, 53% of consumers are more likely to unsubscribe because of payment issues, according to DECTA.

Creators are increasingly reliant on platforms that can change the rules of the game at any moment. As YouTube creator Hank Green notes: "Creators are at the mercy of platforms that can change the rules at any time."

This platform dependence isn't just about policy changes or algorithm updates. It's also about data ownership. When a creator's subscriber list lives on a third-party platform, they're effectively renting their audience rather than owning it. This limits their ability to communicate with their fans outside of the platform's ecosystem and makes it difficult to pivot to new business models or platforms if needed.

At first glance, a subscription model seems like a valuable answer to platform dependancy. Until you realise that the subscriptions are dependent on the platforms that offer them, and unless a creator is self-hosting Ghost, that's still a fucking precarious position indeed.

Consumers, faced with an ever-expanding array of subscription options, are reaching their limits. The subscription model, once a novelty, is now ubiquitous. And in a world where even your toothbrush can come with a monthly fee, consumers are becoming more discerning about where they allocate their subscription dollars.

This fatigue is compounded by the competition from major streaming and content services. When consumers are already paying for Netflix, Spotify, and The New York Times, convincing them to add another subscription for an individual creator's content becomes an increasingly hard sell.

So, where does this leave us? Is the subscription model doomed to failure? Not necessarily. But it's clear that creators need to approach it with eyes wide open, aware of both its potential and its limitations.

The future likely lies in hybrid models that combine subscriptions with other revenue streams. This could mean offering a mix of free and premium content, incorporating one-time purchases or digital products, or exploring new forms of creator-audience interaction that go beyond the traditional subscription model. The Try Guys seem to recognize this, as they continue to post content on YouTube while focusing on growing 2nd Try to be their biggest income stream, alongside merchandise sales and live touring.

The next evolution of the creator economy may involve more flexible, customized monetization options, where fans can support creators through micro-transactions, where subscription terms are fluid and adaptable to individual consumer preferences, or where creators can easily bundle their offerings with complementary content from other creators.

The subscription model, for all its flaws, is still a crucial tool for the creator economy. And it does prove that audiences are willing to directly support the creators they love. But like any first draft, it needs revision. The challenge now is to build on its strengths while addressing its limitations, to create a model that truly empowers creators to grow, innovate, and thrive.

The goal should be to create an ecosystem where creators can focus on what they do best – creating – without being hamstrung by the very business model meant to support them. It's a tall order, but if the history of the internet has taught us anything, it's that innovation often comes from unexpected places. The next revolution in creator monetization is out there, waiting to be discovered. And when it arrives, it may make today's subscription models look as quaint as banner ads and pop-up windows.

The creator economy is still in its infancy. The subscription model is just one chapter in a much longer story. As we turn the page to the next chapter, we would do well to remember that the most successful creators have always been those who adapt, innovate, and refuse to be limited by the conventions of the day.

The future belongs to those who can see beyond the paywall.