plain text vs HTML emails - response rates?

Hi

It seems that our plain text (ASCII) emails are out-performing our
HTML emails to our customer list - which is about 50,000 UK email
addresses.
i.e. A 3.7% response rate for text emails and 2.6% for HTML emails.

- Do you guys find plain text more effective than HTML emails?
- How do the overall numbers compare to your experiences?

The text content on the emails was essentially identical in every
other way...
- Would it be worth trying HTML emails with NO IMAGE at all?


Ship
Shiperton Henethe

P.S. By response rate I mean that for every 100 emails sent, up to
3.7 users are taking some action on our website (asking for more
information about a choice of subjects in this case).

ship wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> It seems that our plain text (ASCII) emails are out-performing our
> HTML emails to our customer list - which is about 50,000 UK email
> addresses.
> i.e. A 3.7% response rate for text emails and 2.6% for HTML emails.
>
> - Do you guys find plain text more effective than HTML emails?
Yes.
--
Edwin van der Vaart
Explicitly no permission given to Forum4Designers, onlinemarketingtoday,
24help.info, issociate.de and software-help1.org to duplicate this post.

ship wrote:

> - Would it be worth trying HTML emails with NO IMAGE at all?

No. Having images is the sole possible utility in inflicting HTML on the
recipients in the first place.

--
John

On Fri, 18 May 2007 16:05:10 +0200, in alt.www.webmaster , Edwin van
der Vaart <e.vandervaart@nospam.com> in
<722e3$464db292$18843e95$20787@news.chello.nl> wrote:

>ship wrote:
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> It seems that our plain text (ASCII) emails are out-performing our
>> HTML emails to our customer list - which is about 50,000 UK email
>> addresses.
>> i.e. A 3.7% response rate for text emails and 2.6% for HTML emails.
>>
>> - Do you guys find plain text more effective than HTML emails?
>Yes.

ITYM

<strong>
Yes
</strong>

;-)


--
Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"

John Hosking scribed:

>Having images is the sole possible utility in inflicting HTML on the
>recipients in the first place.

That's not true in general. We email HTML medical reports. They're formatted
using CSS and ready to print from OE or the customer's browser.
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

Ed Jay wrote:
> John Hosking scribed:
>
>> Having images is the sole possible utility in inflicting HTML on the
>> recipients in the first place.
>
> That's not true in general. We email HTML medical reports. They're formatted
> using CSS and ready to print from OE or the customer's browser.

Okay, yes. My imagination had not stretched to such a usage, as I don't
remember ever receiving a medical report by e-mail. I only get
advertizing malarky, some of which I opted-in for. In the spam (or
non-spam) I get, tables are used for layout, almost never for data.

I'm wondering: What do your recipients do when their client isn't
HTML/CSS ready? Or have you just trained them all (I suspect a closed
group of recipients for this usage) to use OE set to display HTML?

I recognize the inaccuracy of my generalization. People trying to send
forms and tables would also benefit from HTML, but will have the same
problem with non-HTML readers.

--
John

Per Ed Jay:
>That's not true in general. We email HTML medical reports. They're formatted
>using CSS and ready to print from OE or the customer's browser.

But that's legitimate stuff sent to somebody who wants it.

Seems like the OP was referring to what I'd call spam.
--
PeteCresswell

(PeteCresswell) scribed:

>Per Ed Jay:
>>That's not true in general. We email HTML medical reports. They're formatted
>>using CSS and ready to print from OE or the customer's browser.
>
>But that's legitimate stuff sent to somebody who wants it.
>
>Seems like the OP was referring to what I'd call spam.

In which case I'm 100% onboard.
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

John Hosking scribed:

>Ed Jay wrote:
>> John Hosking scribed:
>>
>>> Having images is the sole possible utility in inflicting HTML on the
>>> recipients in the first place.
>>
>> That's not true in general. We email HTML medical reports. They're formatted
>> using CSS and ready to print from OE or the customer's browser.
>
>Okay, yes. My imagination had not stretched to such a usage, as I don't
>remember ever receiving a medical report by e-mail. I only get
>advertizing malarky, some of which I opted-in for. In the spam (or
>non-spam) I get, tables are used for layout, almost never for data.

The reports are to my best recollection, the only HTML email I receive that
isn't spam.
>
>I'm wondering: What do your recipients do when their client isn't
>HTML/CSS ready? Or have you just trained them all (I suspect a closed
>group of recipients for this usage) to use OE set to display HTML?

My clients do comprise a relatively small, 'captured' audience. We provide
instructions on how to set up OE, and we also provide them with a pre
configured copy of Opera.
>
>I recognize the inaccuracy of my generalization. People trying to send
>forms and tables would also benefit from HTML, but will have the same
>problem with non-HTML readers.

True.
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

On 18 May 2007 06:48:09 -0700, ship put finger to keyboard and typed:

>
>
>Hi
>
>It seems that our plain text (ASCII) emails are out-performing our
>HTML emails to our customer list - which is about 50,000 UK email
>addresses.
>i.e. A 3.7% response rate for text emails and 2.6% for HTML emails.
>
>- Do you guys find plain text more effective than HTML emails?
>- How do the overall numbers compare to your experiences?

It depends on how the choice was made.

With one mailing list that I administer, we originally only did plain
text. We later changed that to offer new subscribers the choice of
plain text or HTML. The results were interesting: People who
explicitly chose plain text when given the choice had a higher
response rate than people who accepted the default of HTML, but those
who accepted the default of HTML instead of choosing plain text had a
higher response rate than legacy subscribers who were on plain text
from the start.

I suspect that this is due primarily to psychological factors. People
who care enough about the mailings to explicitly choose a format are
more likely to respond than those who are simply agreeing to join the
list out of inertia (hence the higher response rate from those who
choose plain text when HTM is an alternative), but if people are
joining the list without any real commitment to it then HTML emails
are subsequently more likely to catch their eye.

Mark
--
Visit: http://www.MotorwayServices.info - read and share comments and opinons
"Well it's true today"