When branding interferes with persuasion.

I read two papers in the last week re Web Analytics Assesment/Usage.

Appraising Your Investment In
Enterprise Web Analytics

● research conducted in Q2-thru-Q3 2009 by Forresters

● authored by Forresters Consulting
● commissioned by Google.

The Cost of Free

● based on research conducted in Q2 2009 by Forresters
● presented by web tech experts
● commissioned by Omniture.

Both are informative reads - thank you to all contributors for making them freely accessible. And both appear to present the data and subsequent analysis in the light most complimentary to their commissioners business interests - S.O.P... Aside from the content of each paper, what I find most interesting is the profound differences in positioning.

Should you read each paper you'll notice...
Branding

• the Google version includes a persistent but relatively obscure mention of Google as the host through out.
• the Omniture version includes logo and their standard collateral look & feel through out.

Scripting

• the Google version is academic, void of product mentions or associative need/solution based content.
  
• the Omniture version is promotional with a high volume of product mentions and associative need/solution based content.

Objectivity

• the Google version includes full disclosure of research methodology. Is authored by the researchers, Forresters.
• the Omniture version discloses competitors. It employs the reputations of web tech experts cited as the presenters; John Lovett [senior analyst at Forresters Research] along with Tony Bradshaw and Tim Munsell [senior DaveRamsey.com representatives]. Note... presenter vs author may be a matter of semantics.
  

My questions is...
Which approach do you believe to be more effective?

My take...
If the consumer believes the data and conclusions presented adheres to unbiased and accepted research standards they are more apt to use the information to assess competitive 'value offered'. Therefore perceived 'truth of data' is a significant factor in the probability of tactic persuasion. Google's hands-off approach feels more objective, thus credible, thus able to persuade.

Given the Omniture paper is categorized as a 'workbook' it may not be entirely fair to make an apples-to-apples comparison. As a workbook I would suspect presenting participants with the data and interspersing it with [carefully crafted] questions, allowing them to form their our own Omniture affirmative conclusions, may be a more persuasive variation on the original approach.

To access a link to each paper please click on it's corresponding image above.