I've been sending plain emails to my list, because I like the ultra minimalism of it. If I've got two sentences to share with my list my email is "Hi" + two sentences + "Bye" + unsubscribe links. Does it "convert" better than styled emails? I don't know. I don't care. Does it do well enough to meet my goals. Yes. There's many things I'd rather be doing with my time than optimising everything for marketing goals.
I like plain emails much more than styled ones. But the point with the "does it convert better" is a pretty big. I mean, I work with people who hire marketing consultants who tell them what they need to do for better conversions. All decisions are based on that metric. So I wouldn't expect much change if there are no numbers that tell "plain converts better".
Plain emails not only save time but work better (2016)
11–20 of 122 posts
Re: Plain emails not only save time but work better (2016)
#12Re: Plain emails not only save time but work better (2016)
#13I've noticed more web companies lately are opting for much more basic emails than before, it's been a welcome change. Waiting for those image and layout heavy emails to load on a mobile device is pure irritation. On the other end of that spectrum are the ones I get from ebay, which when the images don't load because security, actually just show as a completely empty email with the only words appearing being "Did you…
Part of that is that it is easier to be misidentified (or, of course, correctly identified) as spam by automated checkers the more you do with a message. Logs of image and little text? Higher spam likelihood score, lots of CSS could be trying to disguise real links, higher score, ...
Even if not identified as spam there are less stringent automated classifications that can take your message out of the user's default view (the social and promotions sub-sections of gmail, for instance).
Re: Plain emails not only save time but work better (2016)
#14How is it even possible to track the open rate without HTML? I'm not an email expert and genuinely curious. I was under the impression that people use tags for that.
When he says "plain text email", what he means is "HTML email with very little styling". Sending true plain text email without a multipart HTML section is much worse for deliverability, from my experience (assumedly because plaintext emails are almost always "automatic emails")
I find that statement very surprising. I haven't sent a single HTML mail in... all the time since I started using email. I never had deliverability problems that I could trace down to the mails being text.
(I also have surprisingly few deliverability problems to begin with and my gut feeling is 90% of hostmaster complains can be described as "you've been blocked by the spam filter because you were sending spam".)
Re: Plain emails not only save time but work better (2016)
#15Click rate of html email: 0.3%
That's very low and yet the result was, loudly claimed in bold, that the plain text one had 3.3x more clicks than the designed email!! Also, the opened rate is within the margin of error and therefore insignificant. I may not be a data analyst, yet I look at the analysis and think to myself, "eh?"
Re: Plain emails not only save time but work better (2016)
#16Can't most of the results be attributed to it simply being different ? If everyone started sending marketing emails like this, then they would start looking like advertisements, they would feel less personal, spam and "promotional" filters would adapt, and you'd be back to square 1. Plus, I very much like the "Promotional" filters for email, both as someone that receives it, and someone that has sent it. Email spam i…
Guess which is the only email list I've unsubscribed from in the last month?
Re: Plain emails not only save time but work better (2016)
#17The problem is a lot of marketers or designers go overboard with HTML emails and they’re overly designed with visuals and graphics in an attempt to look good or match their brand.
Using actual plain text is a bit of a pendulum swing in the other direction though and really restricts things, including the fact you can’t add tracking pixels to get the analytics you might need.
An HTML email that is “designed” to still look like plain text strikes a good balance I think. Allows for some visual type hierarchy improvements, allows for links with clear anchor text and utm tags and any tracking pixels you need. Easier for you the developer to maintain. While at the same time isn’t distracting to the user.
Re: Plain emails not only save time but work better (2016)
#18Re: Plain emails not only save time but work better (2016)
#19Since then, I’ve made all important announcements to my company’s customers via this “personal”, no-design style. The reply-to is my direct email address, which I think deepens the personal touch of this style, and prevents me from abusing this format for marketing spam (since I inevitably get a few dozen replies from customers every time I send an email like this).
On the note of this style being more effective just because it’s different: There’s certainly an element of that, but I don’t think a really personal-feeling email can work for frequent marketing emails. First, I think the real reply-to is a critical part of a “personal” email, and second, I think companies will understand that this style works better when reserved for infrequent communication that you really want read. At our company, our standard marketing goes out designed. But when I want to announce a new product or feature, I’ll send it out just like an email from my outbox (plus the mandatory unsubscribe link). My customers read those emails more than any others, and I’ve never had a bad response.