Google Inc. (GOOG): Like New Ad Size? Great. But Only 1, Please

Google Inc. (NASDAQ:GOOG) just introduced its new 300×600 ad size for its partners in recent weeks, marking the largest ad size available to Google sponsors. The interest has been apparently high, so much so that Google is having to institute a policy of moderation for those sponsors.

It goes something like this: So, you like our new larger, bolder ad size? That’s great, we’re glad. But moderation is key in this process, so while you may like to buy several of these properties, we’re only allowing our sponsors one of these templates for each page on which you will display ads.

The new one-biggie-per-page policy was implemented by the company as a way to keep some consistency with its existing policy that encourages a fair amount of content “above the fold” on a web page, restricting the amount the display ad space on each page.  The policy change was iterated by Google Inc. (NASDAQ:GOOG) policy associate Charles Huang.  “Because this new format is larger than all our other ad units, we want to help ensure a balance between content and ads across publisher sites. With this in mind, going forward, publishers will be permitted to place a maximum of one 300×600 ad unit on each page. If you’ve placed more than one 300×600 ad unit per page on your site, we ask that you remove any additional ad units by Jan 10, 2013. We’ll also be sending email notifications shortly to affected publishers, asking them to make this update.”

Huang re-emphasized that Google Inc. (NASDAQ:GOOG) ad policy is a maximum of three ads on a single web page, but now that policy will not include more than one of the largest display size in order “to consider both the user and advertiser experiences when placing any additional ad units on your pages.”

Do you think this is a user-experience decision, or is it about revenue for Google Inc. (NASDAQ:GOOG)? Could it be both? Do you think this restriction will help or hinder advertisers and/or Google in the long run? Do you sense an impact on the bottom line for investors like billionaire Julian Robertson of Tiger Management ?