Rethinking my position on the HTML email
The inception of this post - I hope of my own creation, DiCaprio - was to compile a pros/cons list for sending HTML emails, as opposed to sending plain text emails. The list quickly became so lopsided that I have instead decided to post a list of reasons why I have decided to become an advocate against sending HTML emails. Email is an aging medium, but I still think it has its place in our arsenal of marketing tools that we wield for our clients. What I do believe should go the way of the dodo, however, is the overly-designed, glossy email project. Here's why:
Microsoft
As of Outlook 2007, Microsoft rolled back its standards/CSS support to that of the dreaded Internet Explorer 6.0. Translation, no support at all. Quoting MSDN,
"Word [and thus Outlook] 2007 supports a subset of the standard HTML 4.01 specification and of the Internet Explorer 6.0 HTML specification. Word 2007 also supports a subset of the standard Cascading Stylesheet Specification, Level 1. Word 2007 uses HTML elements that support a subset of the Word 2007 cascading style sheets properties."
Off in the distance, a pterodactyl screeches. Our email design possibilities have been driven back to the stone age. It's just not possible to rely on any inline CSS and hope to cover all your bases (I'm looking at you, Lotus Notes). And cover all bases, we must. Our corporate clients just cannot realistically drop old email clients because we tell them they should. It's expensive. And we understand that. So, just as we steel our jaw and continue to debug IE6, we must accept our email reality. Font tags. Table layout. CSS nada. That said, we can still create and flawlessly execute beautiful email designs. Buuuut...
Devices
Handhelds are everything, NOW. They no longer represent a burgeoning slice of the pie, about to drop. Devices are here now, and they are taking over the world. Everybody's got one, or is thinking about getting one. And everybody is checking their email on them. Yes, I'm throwing that superlative around, but really, it's not far from the truth. Certainly, decision makers are checking their mail on their phones. And guess what? You're talking about busy people with busy schedules. And you're talking about 300 pixels to work with.
Our standard practice now, as with most, is to offer a plain-text backup to our pretty HTML emails, for those on Blackberrys. But I would submit we should be assuming everyone on our mailing lists is viewing our emails on a small screen, and adjust our strategy accordingly.
Spam, third-party content filters
Spam filters are a devilish and fickle lot. They are trained to sniff out things like image weight and sloppy, invalid HTML code. If your pretty email scores high enough on the spam-o-meter, it's declared unfit for consumption and deflected off into the ether. Most spam filters these days are smart enough to discern the well-intentioned from the Nigerian fortune scammers. But still, why take the risk that your message doesn't even get a chance?
Most modern email clients keep things flowing smoothly by putting a hold on third-party content within your email - namely, images. So you're left with gaping holes in your presentation layer unless and until the user decides to click to receive. If you're like me, if I don't recognize the sender, it's an easy decision to delete the email versus clicking to receive the hidden content.
Solutions/Compromises
I've listed three very meaty reasons to kick HTML emails to the curb. There will always be the client or the case where a snazzy HTML email is the appropriate solution, but I believe, going forward, that these should be the exception, not the norm. We provide press releases to the media in plain text because we are presenting information, not selling. Increasingly, users are becoming more and more aware of The Sell, and we should recognize this before they do. I will be the first to acknowledge that plain text is, well, plain. It's horribly underwhelming to all of us creatives, as I'm sure it might be to many clients, charging us with spreading their message. My solution is twofold.
- Focus on the message. We have brilliant copywriters, armed to the teeth with wit and savvy, who know your brand like the back of their hand. A succinct, compelling message will suck you in, no matter the vehicle.
- Format that text! Taking the time and care to be sure that your text is properly formatted, that your links lay out and work properly, and that your spacing, line-breaks and justification are all in order will serve you well in the long run.
Again, I'm not vilifying the HTML email - 95% of email clients can wrangle HTML with no trouble at all (though, revisit point #3 about content blocking). I'm merely suggesting we focus more on the message and cut through the gloss, where applicable. I'd love for us as an agency to try and gather our own hard data. A/B testing of some sort? Yes? We always offer plain text as backup, but let's find a way to concretely measure conversion rates in an either/or situation. I'd love to hear your input.
Comments
Not only do I think that you're probably right, I think your suggestion to A/B test this is spot on. Next time we do an HTML email, let's tell the client that new trends in technology might make less graphics heavy emails more effective. If we suggest an A/B test with a significant enough percentage being shown the alternative, light-weight email, we can collect some data and settle this.
I've long been a proponent of plain text emails and I've noticed in the past year an increase in plain text emails from larger corporations and popular websites.
Not only do plain text emails get by all of the issues you pointed out above, they are also quicker to produce and deliver when time is of the essence.
To be clear, I think that we can still use *some* graphics. A small logo, an image, and a footer image wouldn't be over the top.
Leave a Comment