Which E-mail Format Works Best -

To use HTML e-mail, or not to use HTML e-mail?

That is the question e-mail marketers are asking
themselves these days. And with good reason. No
complete studies, to my knowledge, have been published
on whether the plain-text or HTML format works best.

The anecdotal evidence is often contradictory.

Let me give you an example of what I mean. I contacted
two friends who are experts in the field of e-mail
marketing.

Here is what they had to say:

"Generally, HTML e-mail results are superior to plain
text . . . it definitely makes sense to use HTML."

Jeff Wilkins

CEO, MarketModels, www.marketmodels.com

"For our customers, text performs best . . . the tech
buyer generally doesn't like to use bandwidth on e-mail
messages and often they refuse it at their e-mail
client, or when they sign up. Now that bandwidth is
not such an issue, we are starting to see better
results in HTML B2B e-mail marketing."

Robert Mendez

CEO, NetHawk Interactive, Inc., www.nethawk.net

As you can see, there are different points of view out
there. (I must add that these quotes are excerpts only,
and both e-mail marketing experts provided more nuanced
views and certainly advocated testing both formats!)

Though I can't say definitively whether a plain-text
or HTML format is right for YOU, I'd like to provide
you with some food for thought.

Let's start with the basics.

Sophisticated e-mail marketers send their sales
messages in three distinct formats - AOL, HTML, and
plain-text.

Some mailers try to figure out which formats
individual prospects can read by checking domains. For
example, AOL recipients are easy to spot by looking
for the "aol.com" domain in their e-mail addresses. A
mailer would also know that all Hotmail.com accounts
can handle HTML.

Despite this ability to infer format-reading
capability by domain name, many e-mail marketers send
both a plain-text version AND HTML version as multi-
part MIME attachments to all non-AOL recipients. Then
it's up to the recipient's e-mail "client" (the
recipient's software) to decide which version to
display.

HTML messages that get opened (called "opens"), plus
transmissions, and deliveries, can all be tracked by
the sender. This means that a subscriber can be
definitively classed as an HTML recipient. What's
more, the open-rate data can tell you a lot about the
quality of a list or subject line - information that's
hard to glean from plain-text mailings.

Plain-text recipients can be identified if they
click through on an embedded link. (Plain-text
recipients and HTML recipients that don't
open or clickthrough can't be tracked.)

* The case for HTML

As you can see from the information above, if you're
into tracking responses, (and you should be!) HTML
can't be beat. Though there are people out there whose
e-mail software can't read HTML, the number of them is
declining quickly.

Also, I've heard so many anecdotal stories of HTML
e-mail results beating the heck out of plain-text
results, that I'm starting to become a fan.

If you DO plan on using HTML e-mail, let me mention an
important issue to consider . . . how your HTML e-mail
page will look.

There are so many dreadful-looking HTML e-mails out
there that you really want to make your page as
attractive and readable as possible. This should be a
priority!

Here are two ways to achieve that goal:

1. Contact Cris Parsons and get him to do a layout for
your HTML e-mail. Cris is a wonderful graphic
designer/art director who can suggest ways to make
your HTML e-mail look absolutlely terrific. Request
free samples at cepdesign@aol.com
or call (408) 247-1665. Cris is also the perfect
choice for brochures, direct mail, you name it.
His design services are extremely affordable, and
he is a good guy to boot.

Cris Parsons

Parsons Art Direction & Design

1145 Myrtle Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086

cepdesign@aol.com (408) 247-1665

2. Take a look at an excellent article by Dr. Ralph
Wilson, titled "HTML E-mail: Text Font Readability
Study." Check it out at:

http://www.wilsonweb.com/wmt6/html-email-fonts.htm

The article tells you which fonts and type sizes work
best on the Web. Interesting stuff. Well worth
reading!

* The case for plain-text

For all the pro-HTML things I've mentioned above, as
you can see right in front of you, in my own
e-newsletters I use plain-text, not HTML.

Why? Because I personally like the simplicity,
immediacy, and directness of plain-text. Also, my
audience is a BUSINESS audience used to getting
business e-mails. I don't want readers to feel like
they're being sold something or confuse my message for
a consumer HTML message selling mortgage refinancing,
online drug stores, or whatever.

Before laser printing and the Web became ubiquitous, I
used to advise clients to use a courier typewriter
font for their paper direct mail letters. I liked the
simplicity and cleanness of the typewriter look. For
the same reason, I like plain-text better than HTML -
but remember, I'm talking about an e-newsletter. If
you're doing lead-generation to a mass audience,
or some rock'em, sock'em B2C e-mail, test HTML for
sure!

The takeaway message this month? HTML e-mail, in many
cases makes sense, but don't give up on the plain-text
format. As always, in direct-response marketing, test,
test, and test again!

=====================================

How To Get In Touch

=====================================

Ivan Levison

Direct Response Copywriting

14 Los Cerros Drive

Greenbrae, CA 94904



Phone: (415) 461-0672

Fax: (415) 461-7738

E-mail: ivan@levison.com

Web Site: http://www.levison.com

Return to Library of Business Information