More Related Content
Similar to Htmlvstext (20)
Htmlvstext
- 1. HTML vs. TEXT
DC Web Women
“Blacklists, Whitelists and Read All Over”
June 17, 2003
Gabriela Linares
VP Marketing
© 2003 L-Soft
- 2. Industry Research – Study #1
Source: Survey of E-Mail Format Preferences and Programs, Dr. Ralph F. Wilson,
April 2003 - N=954
© 2003 L-Soft
- 3. Industry Research – Study #1
Source: Survey of E-Mail Format Preferences and Programs, Dr. Ralph F. Wilson,
April 2003 - N=954
HTML Readability Today:
Bible Study Business
Yes 87.1% 93.1%
Only Partially 7.6% 4.5%
No 5.3% 2.4%
Respondents 394 468
© 2003 L-Soft
- 4. Industry Research – Study #1
Source: Survey of E-Mail Format Preferences and Programs, Dr. Ralph F. Wilson,
April 2003 - N=954
E-Mail Client Program
Casual users: Business users:
Outlook Express 34% Outlook 98/2000/XP 48%
AOL 6.0 to 8.0 17% Outlook Express 27%
Yahoo! Mail 13% Eudora 11%
Outlook 98/2000/XP 12%
HotMail 10%
AOL users: 92% of users studied used version 6.0 and
higher and could read HTML e-mail
© 2003 L-Soft
- 5. Industry Research – Study #1
Source: Survey of E-Mail Format Preferences and Programs, Dr. Ralph F. Wilson,
April 2003 - N=954
© 2003 L-Soft
- 6. Industry Research – Study #1
Source: Survey of E-Mail Format Preferences and Programs, Dr. Ralph F. Wilson,
April 2003 - N=954
Plain Text Preference
Bible Study Business
Dial-up Access 24.1% 41.3%
Broadband Access 20.3% 17.3%
© 2003 L-Soft
- 8. Industry Research – Study #1
Source: Survey of E-Mail Format Preferences and Programs, Dr. Ralph F. Wilson,
April 2003 - N=954
© 2003 L-Soft
- 9. Industry Research – Study #1
Source: Survey of E-Mail Format Preferences and Programs, Dr. Ralph F. Wilson,
April 2003 - N=954
Reasons for HTML preference:
© 2003 L-Soft
- 10. Industry Research – Study #1
Source: Survey of E-Mail Format Preferences and Programs, Dr. Ralph F. Wilson,
April 2003 - N=954
Reasons for HTML preference:
• Readability (78%)
© 2003 L-Soft
- 11. Industry Research – Study #1
Source: 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%)
© 2003 L-Soft
- 12. Industry Research – Study #1
Source: 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%)
© 2003 L-Soft
- 13. Industry Research – Study #1
Source: 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%)
© 2003 L-Soft
- 14. Industry Research – Study #1
Source: 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%)
© 2003 L-Soft
- 15. Industry Research – Study #1
Source: 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:
© 2003 L-Soft
- 16. Industry Research – Study #1
Source: 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%)
© 2003 L-Soft
- 17. Industry Research – Study #1
Source: 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%)
© 2003 L-Soft
- 18. Industry Research – Study #1
Source: 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%)
© 2003 L-Soft
- 19. Industry Research – Study #1
Source: 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%)
© 2003 L-Soft
- 20. Industry Research – Study #1
Source: 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%)
© 2003 L-Soft
- 21. Poll on HTML vs. Text preference - #2
Readers of “Splash” and “E-zine Tips”, N=600, February 2003
© 2003 L-Soft
- 22. Poll on HTML vs. Text preference - #2
Readers of “Splash” and “E-zine Tips”, N=600, February 2003
© 2003 L-Soft
- 23. Poll on HTML vs. Text preference - #2
Readers of “Splash” and “E-zine Tips”, N=600, February 2003
Reasons for preferring text:
© 2003 L-Soft
- 24. Poll on HTML vs. Text preference - #2
Readers of “Splash” and “E-zine Tips”, N=600, February 2003
Reasons for preferring text:
Can't read HTML 6%
© 2003 L-Soft
- 25. Poll on HTML vs. Text preference - #2
Readers 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%
© 2003 L-Soft
- 26. Poll on HTML vs. Text preference - #2
Readers 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%
© 2003 L-Soft
- 27. Poll on HTML vs. Text preference - #2
Readers 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%
© 2003 L-Soft
- 28. Poll on HTML vs. Text preference - #2
Readers 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%
© 2003 L-Soft
- 29. Poll on HTML vs. Text preference - #2
Readers 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%
© 2003 L-Soft
- 30. Poll on HTML vs. Text preference - #2
Readers 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%
© 2003 L-Soft
- 31. Poll on HTML vs. Text preference - #2
Readers 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:
© 2003 L-Soft
- 32. Poll on HTML vs. Text preference - #2
Readers 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%
© 2003 L-Soft
- 33. Poll on HTML vs. Text preference - #2
Readers 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%
© 2003 L-Soft
- 34. Poll on HTML vs. Text preference - #2
Readers 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%
© 2003 L-Soft
- 35. Poll on HTML vs. Text preference - #2
Readers 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%
© 2003 L-Soft
Ads can be more effective in HTML
- 37. Use of anti-spam filters - #3a
Source: 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
© 2003 L-Soft
- 38. Response rates per format- #4
Source: IMT Strategies, Sept. 2001
Click-Through 15.60%
18.50%
Conversion 5.30%
9.00%
North
HTML
Bounce 7.70%
7.40% Text
Unsubscribe 3.20%
1.20%
0%5.00% 15.00%
10.00% 20.00%
© 2003 L-Soft
- 39. Other Industry Research #5
Source: 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
© 2003 L-Soft
- 40. Best practices is a moving target- #6
Source: 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
© 2003 L-Soft
- 41. Anti-Spam filters
Spam 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
© 2003 L-Soft
- 42. 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
© 2003 L-Soft
- 43. 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
© 2003 L-Soft
- 44. 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
© 2003 L-Soft
- 46. HTML vs. Text issues
Tracking recipient behavior
© 2003 L-Soft
- 47. HTML vs. Text issues
Tracking recipient behavior
HTML allows for tracking open-ups, click-thrus,
frequency, date, time, personal data and demographics
© 2003 L-Soft
- 48. 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
© 2003 L-Soft
- 49. 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
© 2003 L-Soft
- 50. 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
© 2003 L-Soft
- 51. 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
© 2003 L-Soft
- 52. 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
© 2003 L-Soft
- 54. Evaluate options
HTML & Text:
• Offer two separate
mailing lists if possible
• Provide recipient with
alternative at registration
© 2003 L-Soft
- 55. Evaluate options
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?
© 2003 L-Soft
- 56. Evaluate options
HTML & Text: Send multi-part messages
• 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?
© 2003 L-Soft
- 57. Evaluate options
HTML & Text: Send multi-part messages
• Offer two separate • Providing alternative for
mailing lists if possible those who cannot read
html
• 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?
© 2003 L-Soft
- 58. Evaluate options
HTML & Text: Send multi-part messages
• Offer two separate • Providing alternative for
mailing lists if possible those who cannot read
html
• Provide recipient with
• “Sniffing” technology is
alternative at registration not an established e-mail
protocol therefore is not
HTML only reliable
• Text-only recipients are
not reached
• Test how message is
viewed in different e-mail
clients
• Attach images? Or
reference web site?
© 2003 L-Soft
- 59. Evaluate options
HTML & Text: Send multi-part messages
• Offer two separate • Providing alternative for
mailing lists if possible those who cannot read
html
• Provide recipient with
• “Sniffing” technology is
alternative at registration not an established e-mail
protocol therefore is not
HTML only reliable
• Text-only recipients are
not reached
Text only
• Test how message is
viewed in different e-mail
clients
• Attach images? Or
reference web site?
© 2003 L-Soft
- 60. Evaluate options
HTML & Text: Send multi-part messages
• Offer two separate • Providing alternative for
mailing lists if possible those who cannot read
html
• Provide recipient with
• “Sniffing” technology is
alternative at registration not an established e-mail
protocol therefore is not
HTML only reliable
• Text-only recipients are
not reached
Text only
• Reaches entire audience
• Test how message is
viewed in different e-mail
clients
• Attach images? Or
reference web site?
© 2003 L-Soft
- 61. Evaluate options
HTML & Text: Send multi-part messages
• Offer two separate • Providing alternative for
mailing lists if possible those who cannot read
html
• Provide recipient with
• “Sniffing” technology is
alternative at registration not an established e-mail
protocol therefore is not
HTML only reliable
• Text-only recipients are
not reached
Text only
• Reaches entire audience
• Test how message is
viewed in different e-mail • Cut text at 60 characters
clients
• Attach images? Or
reference web site?
© 2003 L-Soft
- 62. Evaluate options
HTML & Text: Send multi-part messages
• Offer two separate • Providing alternative for
mailing lists if possible those who cannot read
html
• Provide recipient with
• “Sniffing” technology is
alternative at registration not an established e-mail
protocol therefore is not
HTML only reliable
• Text-only recipients are
not reached
Text only
• Reaches entire audience
• Test how message is
viewed in different e-mail • Cut text at 60 characters
clients • Message can be creatively
designed and easy to scan
• Attach images? Or
reference web site?
© 2003 L-Soft
- 63. Recommendations
1. There is no right or wrong format
2. Determine internal capacity & needs
3. It is all about your recipients: survey them about desired
format
4. Consider ISPs’ anti-virus and anti-spam measures –
AOL, MSN, Earthlink measures -- which are DYNAMIC
5. Consider personal anti-spam applications
6. Test, test, test
© 2003 L-Soft
Editor's Notes
-
-
-
-
- 45% of casual users compared to 77% of business users have high-speed access
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- 98-99
-
- 104
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-