220 likes | 234 Views
Explore the findings from a comprehensive study on email format preferences, comparing HTML and text formats. Learn about reader preferences, factors influencing choice, and industry best practices.
E N D
HTML vs. TEXT DC Web Women “Blacklists, Whitelists and Read All Over” June 17, 2003 Gabriela Linares VP Marketing ã2003 L-Soft
Industry Research – Study #1Source: Survey of E-Mail Format Preferences and Programs, Dr. Ralph F. Wilson, April 2003 - N=954 ã2003 L-Soft
Industry Research – Study #1Source: Survey of E-Mail Format Preferences and Programs, Dr. Ralph F. Wilson, April 2003 - N=954 HTML Readability Today: ã2003 L-Soft
E-Mail Client Program Casual users: Business users: Industry Research – Study #1Source: Survey of E-Mail Format Preferences and Programs, Dr. Ralph F. Wilson, April 2003 - N=954 • AOL users: 92% of users studied used version 6.0 and higher and could read HTML e-mail ã2003 L-Soft
Industry Research – Study #1Source: Survey of E-Mail Format Preferences and Programs, Dr. Ralph F. Wilson, April 2003 - N=954 ã2003 L-Soft
Industry Research – Study #1Source: Survey of E-Mail Format Preferences and Programs, Dr. Ralph F. Wilson, April 2003 - N=954 Plain Text Preference ã2003 L-Soft
Industry Research – Study #1Source: Survey of E-Mail Format Preferences and Programs, Dr. Ralph F. Wilson, April 2003 - N=954 • Reasons for HTML preference: • Readability (78%) • Attractive display (68%) • Ease of scanning (64%) • Overall design (64%) • Reasons for text preference: • Readability (73%) • Security from viruses (68%) • Ease of saving for future use (63%) • Ease of scanning (61%) • Download speed (54%) ã2003 L-Soft
Poll on HTML vs. Text preference - #2Readers of “Splash” and “E-zine Tips”, N=600, February 2003 ã2003 L-Soft
Poll on HTML vs. Text preference - #2Readers of “Splash” and “E-zine Tips”, N=600, February 2003 Reasons for preferring text: • Can't read HTML 6% • Just want the meat without the distractions 32% • Like to read offline 15% • Ads are more intrusive in HTML 22% • Slow to download 14% • Other 11% Reasons for preferring HTML: • HTML email can be laid out more effectively 28% • Color can be used 24% • Images can be included 21% • Ads can be more effective in HTML 20% ã2003 L-Soft
Preferred e-mail advertisement formats worldwide, Q1 2002- #3Source: Opt-In News, May 2002 ã2003 L-Soft
Use of anti-spam filters - #3aSource: Opt-In News, May 2002 • (21%) of consumers use a Spam filter within their email messaging programs. • (52%) do not use this type of service and • (27%) are uncertain if they are using a filter feature ã2003 L-Soft
Response rates per format- #4Source: IMT Strategies, Sept. 2001 ã2003 L-Soft
Other Industry Research #5Source: Debbie Weil, WordBiz Report, N=300, May 2003 • One-third publish HTML only • Text-only subscribers are typically less than 50% of list recipients • 70% survey respondents prefer HTML ã2003 L-Soft
Best practices is a moving target- #6Source: Jupiter Media Metrix, May 2002 • Best practices for campaigns are a moving target, depending on campaign objective. • “There is no one best practice for these factors. Only with testing can an e-mail campaign be fully optimized” • Audience segmentation, message content and e-mail format should be tested prior to rolling out any campaign ã2003 L-Soft
Anti-Spam filtersSpam report from the anti-spam filter product Spam Assassin HTML_FONT_COLOR_RED (0.1 points) BODY: HTML font color is red HTML_MESSAGE (0.0 points) BODY: HTML included in message HTML_LINK_CLICK_CAPS (1.1 points) BODY: HTML link text says "CLICK" HTML_FONT_BIG (0.3 points) BODY: FONT Size +2 and up or 3 and up LINES_OF_YELLING (0.0 points) BODY: A WHOLE LINE OF YELLING DETECTED HTML_LINK_CLICK_HERE (0.1 points) BODY: HTML link text says "click here" HTML_FONT_COLOR_GRAY (0.1 points) BODY: HTML font color is gray HTML_FONT_COLOR_YELLOW (0.0 points) BODY: HTML font color is yellow ã2003 L-Soft
HTML vs. Text issues Attachments blocked by Anti-Spam & Anti-Virus filters • Embedded images are attachments • Referencing images from web site does not include attachments • A Multi-Part message may include attachments • Multipart/Alternative doesn’t have attachment • Multipart/Mixed has an attachment • Multipart/related has an attachment ã2003 L-Soft
HTML vs. Text issues Design preferences • Both formats are visually appealing to different groups • Both formats are easier to scan according to different groups • Format depends on company’s image & personality • HTML protocol & e-mail applications’ inconsistencies - AOL • Text convenient for those readers that need specific information and don’t care about format ã2003 L-Soft
HTML vs. Text issues Size of message • Larger size for HTML than for text only messages • HTML with embedded images is larger than with referenced images • Slows transmission and download time for dial-up connection users • Recommended maximum size of an e-mail message is 15k-20k to not alert mail watcher software ã2003 L-Soft
HTML vs. Text issues Tracking recipient behavior • HTML allows for tracking open-ups, click-thrus, frequency, date, time, personal data and demographics • Same tracking capabilities available for text messages BUT doesn’t include open-up tracking User reading e-mail online or offline • HTML messages with referenced images, will not display correctly when read off-line • Network firewalls sometimes strip HTML messages that contain links to outside sources ã2003 L-Soft
HTML & Text: Offer two separate mailing lists if possible Provide recipient with alternative at registration HTML only Text-only recipients are not reached Test how message is viewed in different e-mail clients Attach images? Or reference web site? Send multi-part messages Providing alternative for those who cannot read html “Sniffing” technology is not an established e-mail protocol therefore is not reliable Text only Reaches entire audience Cut text at 60 characters Message can be creatively designed and easy to scan Evaluate options ã2003 L-Soft
Recommendations • There is no right or wrong format • Determine internal capacity & needs • It is all about your recipients: survey them about desired format • Consider ISPs’ anti-virus and anti-spam measures – AOL, MSN, Earthlink measures -- which are DYNAMIC • Consider personal anti-spam applications • Test, test, test ã2003 L-Soft