Last week WIRED announced a bold plan to block ad blockers and to hopefully convert WIRED.com readers into paying customers. WIRED will offer ad blocker users two options: 1) whitelist the website so ads can be shown, or 2) subscribe to an ad-free version of WIRED.com for $3.99 a month, or $1 a week.

For those who choose the whitelist option, WIRED promises to keep the ads “polite” and will only present standard display ads. Subscribers, however, can get complete access to WIRED content without any display advertising or ad tracking.

The reason for the change comes as no surprise. Last year, ad blocking cost publishers approximately $21.8 billion and this year, it is estimated to cost them $41.4 billion, almost double! Ad blockers are becoming more prevalent, and WIRED is trying to find some middle ground to satisfy readers while also keeping the lights on.

“On an average day, more than 20 percent of the traffic to WIRED.com comes from a reader who is blocking our ads. We know that you come to our site primarily to read our content, but it’s important to be clear that advertising is how we keep WIRED going: paying the writers, editors, designers, engineers, and all the other staff that works so hard to create the stories you read and watch here,” said WIRED editors in the Feb. 8 announcement.

“We know that there are many reasons for running an ad blocker, from simply wanting a faster, cleaner browsing experience to concerns about security and tracking software. We want to offer you a way to support us while also addressing those concerns,” they added.

Insider Take:

Bloomberg summarizes the dilemma succinctly in their article about the switch: “The tricky part for online publishers is that they’ve been offering their content without directly charging for it for long enough that readers aren’t accustomed to the idea that they should pay for it,” writes Joshua Brustein for Bloomberg.

WIRED is not the first online publisher to try this approach, and it won’t be the last. In January, we reported a similar change by GQ when it asked readers to turn off their ad blockers or pay for access to online articles. In GQ’s case, however, readers can pay for access with micropayments of $0.50 each. Forbes and Axel Springer are among other publishers also experimenting with ways to ban ad blockers from their sites.

We understand that consumers are used to getting online news for free. For those who insist on using ad blockers or who refuse to pay for news, there will always be sites that offer content for free and this will satisfy a certain type of reader. As more publishers try to find a compromise though, free content will gradually be reduced. Loyal readers who value quality content may eventually have to choose which publishers’ content they are willing to pay for, which they will whitelist and which they will forgo.

What can publishers do in the meantime? Monitor their web traffic and gather as much data as possible to make sound decisions about who is doing the ad blocking and what solutions will work best for their readers.