HTML Email Isn't Rich

I can use this

Submitted by JohnColby on January 21, 2003 - 07:19.

Jaz Wish I'd written this - powerful and to the point - thanks.

login or register to post comments

A few thoughts

Submitted by dshea on January 21, 2003 - 12:43.

I have a client that began sending out HTML-formatted e-mail once a month near the end of last year. I believe they used about $150-200 of my time per e-mail, so the whole experiment cost about $700 roughly. This article prompted me to check their numbers.

Their subscriber list sits at about 3000. From those 4 e-mails, it looks like they made ~ $500 directly, but it's hard to say what they made indirectly. The point being, I haven't done one since before Christmas, so I think somebody figured it out.

Did they lose money because people were rejecting the HTML e-mail campaign outright? No, since they obviously made a few direct sales and possibly a lot more indirect (but we'll never know). They have a rather low subscriber base though, so if their list size was doubled, I'm sure I'd still be doing them.

Your arguments make sense from a technological standpoint, but from a marketing standpoint plain text just isn't good enough. People seldom take the time to read multiple paragraphs of text if it's just black on white, they need the imagery to give them a reason to do so, especially with unsolicited e-mail.

If you asked me to name even one of the last 10 companies that (legitimately) sent me an e-mail, HTML or otherwise, I couldn't do it. Unless I respond to the e-mail, it barely even registers that I received it before I hit the delete key, so does it matter if it came through mangled or not?

While you make some valid points, there needs to be further research done on response rates. If, for example, ten times more people respond to HTML than plain text, all of a sudden the 20% that don't see it properly won't matter, and if the numbers justify the cost then the company involved will happily pay the $100k a year, with raises all around.

login or register to post comments

healthy contrary view

Submitted by gozz on January 22, 2003 - 03:51.

First off, until a week and a half ago I was successful in discouraging clients from sending HTML email, based on the thought that it wouldn't be readable to some. This time, I decided not to "educate" the client. People are using more sophisticated software. I'm seeing a constant decline in the NN 4.x vs NS 6.x+ visits to websites, and I'd bet my bottom dollar, everyone else here is too. One can assume the use of modern email clients is also increasing.

The article next cites privacy issues. Valid point if it's spam, but not all email is spam. This argument is a fallacy (Illicit Minor). Besides, every modern (and most sorta-modern) email client I've looked at has the option of not downloading graphics when emails are viewed.

The author speaks of the cost of extra bandwith for the recipient. This is only pertinent if the recipient doesn't want to receive the email; same fallacy as cited above. It's far from unusual for individuals and organizations to pay for information.

The article recognizes that some people still use email clients incapable of viewing HTML email. One can get around this pitfall two ways that I know of: 1) Give subscribers the choice to subscribe to a HTML version or a plain text version. 2) send both HTML and plain text with a MIME type of text/alternative. Problem solved.

Regarding spam filters � a decent spam filter won't �categorically� (heh, heh) mark all HTML email as spam if one knows how to use it. I doubt anyone could find a home user who's gone over their allotted bandwidth due to HTML email. If an organization is feeling a financial hit from unwanted HTML email, I'd think it's time for a new network admin, or to sign up the admin for a seminar or two. Or tell them to read the damn documentation. Or get a better filter. Spam is not going away anytime soon. Try to swallow. Hard. You won't choke unless you deserve to. Afterthought: what takes more bandwidth: an email with a link to a HTML page or and equivilant to the HTML page in an email?

OK, backing up logically and going forward in the article, what about about the observation that �93 to 97 per cent of all spam� is HTML � whether it's 99% or 1%, this fact is impertinent � again, google for "illicit minor" ... er, maybe this article intends to only rip HTML spam. If this is the case, please stop reading my post and start looking for a gun to shoot me with.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that one shouldn't carefully consider the pros and cons of sending HTML or text/alternative emails vs plain text emails � but dismissing HTML email out of hand like the article does is unwise. Maybe a mental experiment to ponder: In the not so distant past, one couldn't attach a graphic to an email. Imagine the article speaking of email attachments instead of just text. Every single point in the article could be made about that transition other than the author's accolade regardinging send email attachments.

A benefit of being part of a community such as evolt is that Internet technologies are constantly EVOLving and improving; the rate of the evolution is way too fast for many (likely all) of us to keep up with, even with the help of this community. As I started this post, I've very recently made the flip from strongly believing email should be used as it has been for years � the times, they are a changin'. HTML email can be used responsibly and effectively. So ...

I give legitimate thanks to the author for presenting a view different than mine as it's strengthened my belief that even though I was once right in discouraging HTML email, I now know I would be incorrect to think that distributing an idea in a plain text email is always superior to communicating through the richer medium of HTML email.

login or register to post comments

Article

Submitted by Markavian on January 22, 2003 - 09:12.

Good article.

I disagree on how the whole 'I'd be saving you 90,000 $" since companies tend to pay for set bandwidth, and sending out mass e-mails would be done in segments during areas of the day where bandwidth is more available.

What I'm saying is, the company will have pre-paid a set amount of bandwidth, not utilising the bandwidth (i.e. not sending the e-mails out) would be costing them money, not the other way round.

I strongly agree with you though, all HTML email I receive is junk. The only piece that isn't is from www.nintendo.com. It looks like a webpage, it basically is a webpage.. I might have well have had a plain text link, and gone to the website my site.

Note on Flash/Flahsy emails. When sending out advertisments myself, or update bulletins I keep emails to plain text with full http:// links out to sites containing high graphic/flash content. This then puts the ball in the user's court if they want to view the site, and doesn't put them off the fact that I am trying to intrude their privacy.

login or register to post comments

Author Responses

Submitted by mynameismonkey on January 22, 2003 - 09:45.

In hindsight I probably should have slept on the article instead of furiously typing until 4 a.m., perhaps giving myself the chance to be a little clearer. Nonetheless, a few items have popped up in the comments that need addressing.

dshea - you make a valid point, and it may surprise you that I will happily admit that yes, HTML delivers a better response rate. At least for the time being. Here's a quote from Iconocast:

"HTML messages deliver twice the response, on average, of plain text e-mails. According to Jupiter Media Metrix, 60% of online users have the ability to receive and read HTML e-mail."

So yes, you'll reach 60% of your market and get a 200% boost in response. Looks like it evens out to me. Half the people do twice the buying.

Note that I generously allowed 80% as HTML capable, Jupiter claims 60%.

gozz - my comments on privacy make no reference to spam. How exactly do you perceive an illicit minor? There is no logical fallacy stated or implied.

"The author speaks of the cost of extra bandwith for the recipient"

No I don't, ergo, no logical fallacy. I speak of bandwidth costs to the sender.

"Afterthought: what takes more bandwidth: an email with a link to a HTML page or and equivilant to the HTML page in an email?"

Well, if we allow a 5 to 10% response rate off of 100 recipients, we either send all 100 full html pages via email or pull 5-10 over http. It's quite simple math.

Yes, HTML email *can* be used effectively, but the simple fact is it isn't, for the most part. These are some thoughts for people wondering how to do so.

Markavian - the numbers are (cough) illustrative fiction. I'm just trying to quantify it in a way most budget conscious middle managers see the world.

Thanks for all the input so far.

login or register to post comments

ok, we make friends now

Submitted by gozz on January 22, 2003 - 12:19.

Monkey -

Glad you've tempered your opinion by now saying HTML email is sometimes OK.

How exactly do you perceive an illicit minor? There is no logical fallacy stated or implied.

An example of an illicit minor would be: "Some HTML emails force some computers to connect to the Internet when the user is offline and doesn't want to connect, and this is bad. Therefore all HTML email is bad." And this is the form most of your article's arguments take.

I'll be researching this issue in the course of my upcoming project and perhaps will come up with an how-to article for evolt. Your article would be good link to include as a warning that HTML email has it's downsides.

login or register to post comments

Never Say Never

Submitted by mynameismonkey on January 22, 2003 - 12:34.

I'd be a fool to categorically deny the usefulness of *anything*. However, I still stand by my opinion that my article does not use logical fallacy as it's basis. No conclusions are drawn, no secondary statements are made, there is no logical fact nor fallacy in the article at all. The conclusions are left to the reader. For example, your paraphrasing of my comments regarding offline reading are not drawn from anything in the article itself, merely your perception of what you think I meant.

While your perception is valid (we live in a perceived universe), your statement that my article contains illicit minors is factually incorrect.

The article is food for thought, and if you digest it in such a manner as to believe that I am making a blanket statement regarding the "bad"ness of HTML email then I respectfully request that you re-read the article in it's entirety and maybe re-evaluate your comments.

To be sure, I point out many pitfalls associated with the misuse of HTML email, and I make no opposing comments regarding when HTML email (sh|c)ould be employed - that was not the point of the article. However, in my opinion, your brief synopsis of what you ascertain to be my hidden meaning does me and the readers of these comments a disservice.

login or register to post comments

moving on, moving on ...

Submitted by gozz on January 22, 2003 - 18:22.

Monkey -

The real disservice is introducing an article as one that will speak of HTML email in terms of "money, readership, service, branding, image and openings" in order to expose it's "inherent evils", then not arguing against any purported benefits, but speaking only of drawbacks, and triumphantly concluding: "Use the right tools for the right job. Email is for text and attachments, the web is for HTML." If you can't see the fallaciousness in that by now, you never will, so moving on:

I'm not qualified to speak from experience, more that I'm at the moment excited to learn something new to please a client that wants me to help them send out HTML emails; I think it's a great idea, and you're trying to crush my buzz.

So how would you respond to an associate of mine who's company sends out multipart/alternative emails for a client (a large bank) who's cost/benefit analysis concluded that the campaigns generate nearly three times the amount of additional profit (from existing customers who asked for the information) than the campaigns cost? What do you have to say about the endless anecdotal evidence of higher click-through and response rates after switching from plain to HTML email?

Do you even realize it's possible to send out a single email that will appear as plain text (perhaps with three or four lines of easily ignorable junk at the top) in ALL email readers and as HTML in those that support it?

login or register to post comments

Choices

Submitted by jacksonyee on January 22, 2003 - 18:32.

As much as I agree that some people really abuse HTML e-mail, it does have its uses. The main advantange of HTML e-mail is formatting and readability. I receive the New York Times headlines every morning in my mailbox, and having brightly colored headlines with small, black summaries below is much easier for me to scan than plain text.

If you decide to use HTML e-mail, simply give your users a choice between plain text and formatted. It doesn't take that long to copy and paste the content off of an HTML page, and as long as your subscribers have a choice, you can make both types of users happy.

If it's not opt-in or allow you any choice though, then I, along with spamcop.net, shall be your bane. 8-)

login or register to post comments

2 a.m. response...

Submitted by mynameismonkey on January 23, 2003 - 00:17.

Maybe it's my British upbringing, or maybe it's the AS kicking in, but where is there a fallacy? A fallacy is, by definition, a deception. Either put it in plain English or quit abusing the language. I don't mean to be argumentative, but there plainly is no fallacy.

Do you even realize it's possible to send out a single email...

By sending both the text and HTML versions of your ezine, the filesize quickly grows quite unwieldy. If your text ezine is usually around 15K in size, sending both text and HTML in the same message is going to quickly bloat it to 35K or more. Messages that large are going to have a hard time being read by recipients using ISPs such as AOL. If email programs can recognize multipart/alternative content, they can probably also recognize HTML content. If they can't read HTML, they probably can't read multipart content either, which means you're going to run into the same problems with sending HTML to folks with email programs who can't understand it. For recipients who can read the HTML, you're sending along an extra large message with the text included for no reason.

ezine-tips.com

login or register to post comments

Customer choice and longterm value

Submitted by MartinB on January 24, 2003 - 03:40.

Eric wrote:

So how would you respond to an associate of mine who's company sends out multipart/alternative emails for a client (a large bank) who's cost/benefit analysis concluded that the campaigns generate nearly three times the amount of additional profit (from existing customers who asked for the information) than the campaigns cost? What do you have to say about the endless anecdotal evidence of higher click-through and response rates after switching from plain to HTML email?

Eric, did those existing customers not only ask for the information, but also asked for HTML email? And what's the segmentation based on Lifetime Value analysis of those who like HTML email -v- those who don't? Those are the factors that so many quotes on profitability and click-through rates really don't address.

Because there is an additional element of Does the customer want HTML email on top of Can they view it?. Like email marketing generally, those who don't want HTML email usually really don't want it. To send them HTML email without their active permission is damaging to your longterm relationship with them, therefore on retention and therefore on long-term business value.

Now if you find evidence of high-value customers among the HTML-email-haters, then claiming one-off profitability on HTML email campaigns is real slash-and-burn marketing. Remembering Pareto, the significant numbers could be tiny indeed if they're of high enough value.

The way to get around this of course is to only send HTML email to high-value customers if they have explicitly requested it.

login or register to post comments

Excellent article

Submitted by Gossip on January 24, 2003 - 09:18.

I just sent the link in a (text) email to a couple of our marketing guys who still think that HTML email is the cure for everything. :) Thanks!

login or register to post comments

more of the same, plus good points from Martin

Submitted by gozz on January 24, 2003 - 11:21.

Monkey -

You continue to talk about specific drawbacks as if something not perfect in every way is not useful at all. I'm sure you've noticed that if you want to photocopy a document after stapling pages together, you either have to damage the document by taking the staple out and later stapling it together again ... or make the copies look sloppy by folding the pages over the staple. Yet I bet you continue to use staples despite these drawbacks, and don't proselytize that paperclips are always superior to staples.

Martin -

Eric, did those existing customers not only ask for the information, but also asked for HTML email? [...] Because there is an additional element of Does the customer want HTML email on top of Can they view it?. Like email marketing generally, those who don't want HTML email usually really don't want it.

Good point; yes it's certainly better to send a plain text version and HTML version separately (or even better to also offer a third option of multipart/alternative for those who may receive/read the email with various readers with various capabilities). These are the types of questions important to ask when planning an email campaign. But not questions that make plain text the only answer just because the questions exist, and you rightly recognize this.

To send them HTML email without their active permission is damaging to your longterm relationship with them, therefore on retention and therefore on long-term business value.

The cost benefit analysis I referred to projected profit over a long period of time, something like 5 years, I recall - and as I wan't invoved in the project, I don't know if the recipients signed up for plain or HTML, or if it's all multipart/alternative. But, agreed, the company would be wise to do an analysis which includes lost business over that same time period once enough time has passed to allow the data to yield meaningful results. But I'm sure you would agree that the response to such an objection (without hard data to prove it) would be "Well, we'll wait and see. For the meantime, knowing we're bringing in an additional $200K over the next 5 years for a one-time $70K investment is reason enough to continue doing it."

And for me, and I suspect Martin as well (despite our history of verbal battles on thelist regarding new Internet technologies), doing what the client wants and gently warning them about potential problems is my strategy to keep good long-term relations with my clients.

login or register to post comments

Branding

Submitted by noahlazar on January 24, 2003 - 18:26.

From a usability perspective, looking at rich colors and imaged branding always grabs users attention more than plain text. But, there are pros and cons to using HTML email that must be weighed before making a decision. For e-commerce sites such as amazon.com, Best Buy, and ice.com, HTML email is essential to showing off products and peaking users’ interest.

Just as a warning, never, never embed large Flash applets into HTML email. The Discovery Channel Store did that on their newsletters, which basically crashed Outlook after waiting 2 minutes for the movie to download (and I have a DSL connection). It’s almost as bad as using <blink>!

Oh, just as food for thought, Microsoft Outlook 11 (due mid-year) may not automatically download images in HTML emails.

login or register to post comments

Flash

Submitted by Markavian on January 25, 2003 - 05:24.

As I mentioned before, flash is a very good marketting tool.. but should never be embedded within emails. I always upload the flash to the company's website and email out plain text links + a little supportive text for people to visit 'at their leisure'.

login or register to post comments

I hate html mail...I hate attachments

Submitted by the_Bat on February 12, 2003 - 17:02.

Talk about a hot-button issue! The quickest way for any company or organization to earn my enmity is to, A) send me html mail, and/or, B) send mail with attachments. Mail with unexpected attachments is an absolute no-no.

Simply put, I see html mail (which mostly seems to focus on graphical presentation) as acquiescing to what some are now referring to as a growing trend towards alliteracy; i.e., people who can read, but avoid doing so whenever possible. It may simply be that there are those who just never evolve past the juvenile aversion to text in favor of pictures. Others may actually be de-volving. Or, maybe, our societal comprehension level has simply been redefined by the 15-second soundbite. Is this a bad thing? I think it is. Regardless, there does seems to be a trend in that direction.

Whatever the whyfore, obviously managers are finding that html mail is more effective with some people. And, that's fine. But, when I find I cannot opt for plain text over html mail, unless the information being disseminated is vital, I simply unsubscribe. If they continue sending me mail after that, I'll simply block and devnull any further mail from that sender right at the server level. Somehow, I don't think I'm alone in this, either.

Less we risk being lumped into the sewer of spammage, we should always let our customers decide how they want their mailing list or subscription list messages formatted. Do not send html mail to anybody who hasn't specifically asked for it or has indicated they'd rather receive plain text. Barring an indicated preference, the default should always be plain text. Having a customer's email address is a privilege and should be respected as such. Like it or not, the Net is all about customers being in control. If you don't let your customers control how you communicate with them, a certain number of them will simply elect to control you right into the trash bin. It is simply not necessary to risk annoying anybody by attempting to force them to receive messages in a format they don't want.

I think the cardinal rule should be: Companies and organizations which do not respect and allow their customers to define and control the manner in which they communicate with them are invasive, abusive, or technologically inept, and do not deserve either support or patronage. They are, in short, what I call netrude.

login or register to post comments

I want my HTML email!

Submitted by mcombs on February 20, 2003 - 14:47.

Even the people who rail against HTML email have to concede that formatted text is a more effective way of communicating than plain ASCII. Just look at the use of italics and embedded links in their own messages. I'm guessing that they format their web pages, too, for the same reason. What's the problem?

The problems are support for old email readers, increased file sizes, and abuse.

Support issues for old and unpopular email readers are similar to the issues of supporting old or unpopular web browsers. The solution is a combination of knowing your audience (possibly allowing them to specify their preference) and careful coding.

As to increased file sizes, this is partly a matter of education. Remember when web pages used to have huge embedded graphics? Eventually word got out that less is more. Already, the table is turning here. Popular email readers are beginning to provide options to disable automatic image downloading. Most already have filters to skip downloading messages that are too large.

Abuse comes from embedding links to graphics that are used to track whether or not you read the email. The option to disable image downloading will help here. Education will help here, too, but to a limited extent. Responsible companies will curtail the practice, but since when has the bulk of your incoming mail come from responsible companies? I suspect the real hostility toward HTML email is really toward unwanted email. Do it right

There's a lot of help on the web for building smart, slim, accessible web sites. Resources for building HTML email are a lot harder to come by. Some of tips come from spam advocates -- that's not a good way to get started.

I'd love to see resources developed with style guidelines, accessibility strategies, coding tips, delivery tips, and compatibility guidelines for responsible use of HTML email. There's a lot to be gained by being able to embed links, forms, tables of contents, sidebars or just a simple bold headline into email.

login or register to post comments

Ooops. Not all HTML formatting allowed

Submitted by mcombs on February 20, 2003 - 14:55.

Sorry. The <h3> headlines I used in my response were eliminated. They were allowed in the style guide and appeared in the preview, but they're gone now.

login or register to post comments

italics and embedded links

Submitted by mynameismonkey on March 24, 2003 - 06:27.

  If I ever need (or want) a group of people to view my HTML-formatted content, I can send them a plain text email to tell them where it's at.

  Unwanted email is only one part of the problem, and equating everything I've said above with the battle against spam misses the mark, IMHO.

  Yes, on a web page, italics and embedded links are great. That's why I use the Hypertext protocol: to transmit Hypertext - I want to browse web pages on the web, and receive mail, *not web pages*, in my mail client.

  I'll freely admit, hyperlinks in email are a Good Thing (TM), but I see no need for it, it's a nice addition when it works.

- - Which, incidentally, it doesn't in my Groupwise 5.5 client :o) - -

login or register to post comments

Less debate, more help

Submitted by mcombs on March 25, 2003 - 13:38.

I don't want to continue the debate on whether HTML email is good or bad. Let's just say, for example, that your employer wants to use it for customers who request HTML-format email newsletters. This will let them add a table of contents and attractive headings, to make it easier to read and navigate. There might even be users who want to receive web pages in their email client, by clicking an "email this page" button.

This article is good because it helps your employer make an informed decision about HTML email, and has some tips on how to do it right. Or at least, practices that shouldn't be used, like embedding tracking images.

But I'd like to see a more proactive article that spells out how to use HTML email correctly, politely, and effectively. Evolt should lead the way on this, as it has with great articles like the one on using Javascript on Forms.

login or register to post comments

Give people a choice...

Submitted by the_Bat on March 25, 2003 - 14:09.

The whole issue on this is to give people a choice. Don't force HTML mail on a recipient who doesn't want it. If you can't provide an option for subscribers to receive mailings in plain text, don't be surprised if you get viewers who decline to sign up or having done so, will unsubscribe. I have a couple of things that come in HTML format that I accept anyway because I consider the content to be vital and there does not exist an option to receive the mailings in plain text. But the content has to be mighty compelling for me to do that. Very little in the way of the average commercial or list mail is that compelling.

login or register to post comments

re: Less debate, more help

Submitted by mynameismonkey on March 26, 2003 - 06:40.

"But I'd like to see a more proactive article that spells out how to use HTML email correctly, politely, and effectively."

Excellent idea, will do. I'm off to the UK for a few weeks of well-earned rest, but I'll do some research, get some feedback from list owners, put something together in April.

login or register to post comments