Email Marketing-Text or HTML
January 12, 2008 · Print This Article
This is everlasting debate for marketers and there is no clear consensus on anything. While some prefer text, others like HTML.
First, let us understand the difference between capabilities of two formats.
Text email would carry only text and links. That means you would not have any formatting, font and backgrounds. Text email is also unable to carry graphics. Text email can carry links but is unable to embed them. Al links in Text need to be in http:// form.
An HTML email can do all these functions and more.
So why HTML is not the clearly preferred choice?
In a recent survey that involved marketer it was found that 55% favored HTML and 45% preferred text. As of fact over 90% of email readers can view HTML it is quite astonishing that almost half of the people would prefer text over HTML.
Following were the reasons cited against HTML
- HTML is flashy
- HTML carries many distractions
- They have to be online to read HTML (offline HTML will not display links and graphics)
- More prominent and intrusive advertisement on HTML
- HTML is slow to load
Reasons cited in favor of text were
- Text takes up less storage space
- Text seems more secure as less risk of viruses
- Text is easier and faster to scan
- Text is easier to save and copy
- Loads faster than HTML in preview pane
The most popular reason for preferring plain text was that HTML distracted the reader from the actual message due to its flashiness and advertisement format. People wanted emails that focused on the message, and they felt HTML emails contain elements that distract from the content — the content being the reason they signed up for the email in the first place.
But the fact is that readers are almost equally divided on their preference. The best way to get around this is to publish your newsletter both in text and HTML and give your readers option.
Popularity: 3% [?]
I agree that the choice of either text or HTML should be given to recipients. However, before marketers give this option to the recipients they should be aware that text messages can not be tracked, where as HTML messages can contain a tiny piece of code so that you can track and measure the email’s effectiveness.
Also, I’m a big promoter of HTML messages over text. Yes, it’s true that this cited survey says that there is almost a clear split on text vs. html emails. However, there are also other studies that show that, from a design standpoint, HTML trumps text.
In my opinion, HTML also appears more professional, and can be branded so that your customers become more familiar with your brand.
For simple messages, such as confirmation emails, nothing more than text is needed. However, for e-newsletters, I believe HTML is essential.
I have just moved back to a preferred format of .txt format for newsletters. Open rates and click throughs have declined so much in the past 7 years that combined with image blocking (50%) HTML is no longer worth considering for message display or associated advertiser messages. I learned all I could about what works with HTML in the good old days, now I’m more interested in ensuring the email arrives exactly as I want it to. If advertisers want to track click throughs we can give them a nice tracked URL redirect (assuming domain branding isn’t important) and just go with standard industry open rates for a guide on CTR%.
Matt
Erica,
Yes hidden tracking might not be possible in HTML but as Matt pointed out a use of redirect can track text based mails too.
Matt,
Good you mentioned image blocking. I almost forgot to consider that.