E-mail newsletters - a good example

Anyone got any other personal favourites? What do you think about the debate of plain text vs HTML in newsletters?

Sam

On 1:48:53 20 March 2001 Sam wrote:
>For a good example of e-mail newsletters, follow this
>link:
>
>http://www.ifyouski.com/features/skiletters
>
>ifyouski.com's newsletters have been commended by major
>web figures. Key points of note:
>
>- excellent tone: yes, it takes time & resource to
>input a distinctive personal tone, but it's worth it.
>- drives spontaneous purchase decisions ("Look,
>there's so much snow and here's a list of cheap apartment
>deals...")
>- makes use of already-existing content, eg. poll
>submissions (cutting down on need to create content
>afresh)
>- gets people regularly contributing their own views, eg.
>for polls
>
>Sam

Thanks for that, Ben. I think that very succintly summarises the whole HTML-plain text argument. Do you have any particular favourites in the newsletter world?

Sam

On 9:33:2 22 March 2001 Ben wrote:
>According to our mostly American friends at Clickz, HTML
>performs better than text. See
>http://clickz.com/article/cz.3298.html# which says
>"MobilePlanet used to send out the commercial message
>in text-only format, and when the company switched to
>offering HTML last summer, it saw a 40 percent increase in
>response rates."
>
>Maybe the high response rates were due to customer
>complaints ;)
>
>The article actually brings up the HTML/text debate as
>"a burning question that always seems to come
>up" and then doesn't really address it properly.
>
>I would see this debate as exactly the same one as for web
>site design. It comes down to commercial / brand issues,
>target market and technology. Most important of all is
>target market.
>
>Just as with the whole Flash debate you need to understand
>who you are targeting, what you are trying to get out of
>them and what techology and attitudes they are likely to
>have. This then informs the nature and execution of any
>communication and interaction you have with them.
>
>There are little statistics yet on conversion rates and
>consumer response to HTML versus text in e-mail but my
>suspicion is that HTML will win out for more mass market /
>e-commerce type communications and propositions. HTML can
>look 'better' and can include product shots with better
>calls to action than raw text. They are more what a mass
>market would expect - I know e-mail is not direct mail but
>making it as easy, obvious and familiar as possible is
>likely to reap rewards. B2B propositions or business /
>power users are likely to remain content with the speed
>and immediacy of text e-mail for a long while to come.
>
>There are various ways to implement HTML e-mails (images
>embedded in e-mail versus pulled live from the web server;
>dealing with AOL users; auto-detecting HTML support etc.)
>which means only experts should try it. If we have learnt
>one thing from web sites it is that customers have high
>expectations and don't give you a second chance. You
>cannot afford to get it wrong.
>
>HTML e-mail will benefit hugely from broadband (the speed
>with which it will load, the "always on"
>connection etc.) and as people slowly upgrade systems and
>mail clients it seems inevitable that HTML e-mail will
>become the de facto standard.
>
>So in brief:
>- Worry about getting your text based e-mails right first.
>There is loads of work to be done in this area before you
>should even worry about HTML
>
>- Think about HTML e-mails in the context of your target
>market and proposition
>
>- Be very careful about the execution of HTML e-mails.
>Test first. Use people who have "been there and done
>that" to advise you. Auto-detect customer technology
>to deliver appropriately
>
>Ben