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

7. © 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

36. Preferred e-mail advertisement formats
worldwide, Q1 2002- #3
3%
35% HTML
Text
62% Rich Media
© 2003 L-Soft

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

45. HTML vs. Text issues
© 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

53. Evaluate options
© 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