Skip to page content or skip to Accesskey List.
Search evolt.org
evolt.org login: or register

Work

Main Page Content

Style Without Substance: Will HTML Email Survive?

Rated 2.76 (Ratings: 27) (Add your rating)

Log in to add a comment
(11 comments so far)

Want more?

 
Picture of ideahamster

troy janisch

Member info | Full bio

User since: July 08, 2002

Last login: September 07, 2005

Articles written: 15

While pop-up windows exhale a dying breath, HTML-based email messages find themselves looking at a similar fate. Surveys in 2003 are showing that plain text email messages are becoming more popular, and more successful, than HTML counterparts.

A July 10, 2003, Lucid Marketing survey indicated that 53 percent of AOL respondents said they prefer plain text emails to HTML ones. Although they've conducted this survey before, this is the first time that results have favored plain text emails. Plain text emails also proved to be more effective -- in three months of testing they consistently outperformed HTML message. Sometimes by 100%.

For companies using e-marketing tactics, 2003 may prove to be a time of change and opportunity as they apply answers to important questions:

HTML or Plain Text?

Both.

If 53% of recipients prefer plain text, a large number still like HTML email. Don't choose teams. Let email recipients choose whether they want to receive plain text or HTML. Make messages available in both formats and let customers, or email newsletter subscribers, decide the format they want to view.

Will HTML Add Value?

Not always. If 90% of the unsolicited junk email is sent as HTML email, your message may stand out more presented effectively in plain text. Every email message you send does not warrant HTML. Large text, bold fonts, and graphics don't by themselves increase the effectiveness of a message.

Is HTML Worth the Investment?

Sometimes. HTML-based emails need to be created by someone will a high level of HTML programming and design skill. They need to be tested with a variety of email clients before being sent. They need to be given the resources they need to succeed. If an email benefits from HTML, it benefits from having it done properly.

HTML messages aren't bad. However, most are still badly constructed and badly targeted. This needs to change.

Each poorly-constructed HTML email fuels a decline in the effectiveness of HTML email as an effective marketing and communication tool.

Troy Janisch is president and founder of Icon Interactive™, an industry leader helping companies integrate Internet and other Interactive media into sales channels, marketing strategies, and overall branding. He can be contacted by email at tjanisch@iconinteractive.com.

Consice.

Submitted by bearwalk on August 7, 2003 - 01:35.

Short and to the point. But I wish you'd elaborate some more on that Lucid Marketing survey.

login or register to post comments

Why do they prefer plain email?

Submitted by design7 on August 7, 2003 - 19:25.

Do you know why they have a preference for plain email? What do they like about it? It would seem better to see which type of email generates the higher response rate. That may be a better indicator of which is more effective.

login or register to post comments

Other formats : RTF and monospaced ASCII

Submitted by androse on August 9, 2003 - 05:43.

Apple Mail, for example, uses "rich text" by default, and displays text messages in a proportional width font. So unless you change the settings, all ASCII art looks garbled. ASCII art is still very widely used to apply basic formatting to paragraphs, titles, signatures, etc (I'm not talking about ASCII drawings here, just formatting).

So do you think there is a majority of MUAs who don't display text messages with monospaced fonts ? If so, I guess ASCII formatting has to be "considered harmful".

login or register to post comments

AOL = bad with HTML e-mail

Submitted by webinista on August 14, 2003 - 05:30.

re design7: From what I've been able to figure out from working with HTML e-mail newsletter authors is that AOL doesn't handle HTML e-mail particularly well. Not sure if that is true of current versions, but I've seen "AOL users choose 'text'" when there was an option to sign up for one version or the other.

It's also possible that people are becoming more aware of reasons not to choose HTML mail (spy .gifs, JavaScript, download time, etc), and prefer text for that reason.

login or register to post comments

On second reading...

Submitted by webinista on August 18, 2003 - 12:54.

This article is a bit flawed because it only looks at a report on AOL users. While AOL users dominate the home/dial-up market, many people connect to and use the Internet primarily from work where fast connections and e-mail applications that can handle HTML mail are used.

login or register to post comments

Wish some newsletters used HTML

Submitted by nictamer2 on September 3, 2003 - 05:35.

... and I found myself surprised to realize this. My example is securityfocus newsletters; they have a nice text layout, but there's so much information, having it in plain text makes it close to unusable. I wish they used a format with headings in bold and summary of topic in smaller text.

But usually, HTML newsletters mean big flashy crap.

Overall, I'm now convinced that RSS/RDF is the way to go.

login or register to post comments

we send out both- actually 3 kinds thanks to aol.

Submitted by nearmyth on September 3, 2003 - 07:56.

...good article. we produce medical enewsletters with small sponsorship spots in them. we do create 3 versions for each campaign, html, plain text and then the AOL version. We have found that ALOT of networked email clients use email readers with the default settings set to read html but the netwrok admins may block certain items such as images, live linking urls and of couse "embedd" tags- so our user in that case get a very messed up looking email. also another wierd large office item is Lotus email users- lotus will try to load the html but it also messes it up bad- so it gets tricky when you send to those people. Lotus does handle inline css ok though.

Now we have also performed many surveys on our 20,000+ opt in recepients and we have found that the AOL users prefer the plain text because 80% of the aol users are on low bandwidth dialup connections and of course as previously mentioned AOL will fubar any html email you send for the most part.

We have had good success though especially with out click through rates- we keep the sponsorships small and secondary to the content and we keep the content short and sweet - we use a max of 4 headline stories and maybe one or two special announcements. Our sponsorship clients are actually requesting more more html campaigns and our users are responding to them quite well. We even get hammered with quite a few flash email campaigns lol (i read the article slamming flash email- i agree with the article but $$ says i need to agree and produce what the client wants. thanks again for the article.

login or register to post comments

lucid marketing

Submitted by calimehtar on September 5, 2003 - 08:01.

A couple of seconds googling turned up this study by lucid which seems to prove the opposite - that html emails get better response: and this article which has a bit more info on the AOL study.

"This is the first time that we have seen plain text messages consistently outperform HTML email marketing messages," said Jennifer Sparks, Client Services Director for Lucid Marketing.

I guess that the AOL factor was the deciding one in the study mentioned above... if anything, the wording "the first time" suggests that in _all other studies_ html email has outperformed text, or that there was no significant difference. Anyway it's certainly not fair to conclude that html email is bad.

login or register to post comments

Great

Submitted by toolkit on September 6, 2003 - 15:26.

Nice article. I use a web-based email system half of the time which I coded myself, and didn't put too much work into HTML parsing, so I'm pretty much stuck with text-only emails if I want to view them online ;)

login or register to post comments

also: the world is not AOL

Submitted by hucasys on October 2, 2003 - 08:03.

Besides the precisions made to the study mentioned.....AOL does not (luckily) cover the www, today's globalization levels and the overcontinental use of electronic commerce sites tells us we should be looking a bit beyond only AOL clients, which in the end, are only USA clients. Right? ;)

login or register to post comments

Plain Text

Submitted by julwh on October 8, 2003 - 01:26.

I think the plain text messages more convenient. Nice article.

login or register to post comments

The access keys for this page are: ALT (Control on a Mac) plus:

evolt.orgEvolt.org is an all-volunteer resource for web developers made up of a discussion list, a browser archive, and member-submitted articles. This article is the property of its author, please do not redistribute or use elsewhere without checking with the author.