4 ms·

This is absolutely not my experience. Spam uses HTML formatting, sure, but it's not "nicely designed". "Nicely designed" emails are things like flight confirma

This is absolutely not my experience. Spam uses HTML formatting, sure, but it's not "nicely designed". "Nicely designed" emails are things like flight confirmations, invoices, shipping notices, and that kind of transactional email. The common thread is that some entity with Real Money To Spend on a graphic designer is sending a (usually form) email to lots of people. Most spam outfits do not have those kinds of resources, especially since they need to change up their emails constantly to avoid spam filters. The closest I would say that the "pretty" stuff gets to spam is newsletters and particularly political fundraising emails; I'm on a lot of political party lists after spending copious college free time working on campaigns.

TeMPOraL 5y ago
The common thread about those non-spam transactional e-mails you mention is also that they're usually barely above plaintext. They usually contain some minimally styled table, and some of the company colors. Maybe their logo somewhere. That's in stark contrast from the spam these same companies send, which is where all that "Real Money To Spend on a graphic designer" goes. Compare e.g. the spam PayPal sends you vs. the e-mails confirming payments you've made. In my experience, this is pretty universal. And speaking of universal heuristic, in my experience, the quality and relevance of content is strongly inversely correlated with the quality of design. The prettiest websites out there are ones that deliver negative value. The best designed (according to modern trends) user interfaces are the ones with worst ergonomy, wasting user time the most. And yes, the subset of spam that's most recognized - ED pills, reproductive organ enlargement, members of royalty looking for help managing their finances - they tend to be very simply designed. But their distinguishing feature isn't simplicity of design. It's the carelessness. Typos, bad grammar, highly visible formatting mistakes, etc. When, on occasion, one of that "old school" spam messages tries to pose as a legit transactional e-mail, you can see through the deception by noticing the carelessness in replicating the design of the company being impersonated.
- azernik 5y ago
  > And speaking of universal heuristic, in my experience, the quality and relevance of content is strongly inversely correlated with the quality of design. The prettiest websites out there are ones that deliver negative value. The best designed (according to modern trends) user interfaces are the ones with worst ergonomy, wasting user time the most. This is just plain untrue, and seems to color your impression of email as well. See e.g. Delta vs Southwest (more polished look is more ergonomic site/app), or New Relic vs Datadog public-facing sites (indistinguishable in "quality" of the design, for competing products where IMO Datadog is better). What are some examples that put the inverse correlation in your mind?
smsm42 5y ago
V1gr4 spam isn't nicely designed, but marketing we-arent-really-spam-because-we-have-unsubscribe-link spam - surely is. That includes political marketing too, of course, selling politicians is just another form of selling.

TeMPOraL 5y ago

The common thread about those non-spam transactional e-mails you mention is also that they're usually barely above plaintext. They usually contain some minimally styled table, and some of the company colors. Maybe their logo somewhere. That's in stark contrast from the spam these same companies send, which is where all that "Real Money To Spend on a graphic designer" goes. Compare e.g. the spam PayPal sends you vs. the e-mails confirming payments you've made. In my experience, this is pretty universal. And speaking of universal heuristic, in my experience, the quality and relevance of content is strongly inversely correlated with the quality of design. The prettiest websites out there are ones that deliver negative value. The best designed (according to modern trends) user interfaces are the ones with worst ergonomy, wasting user time the most. And yes, the subset of spam that's most recognized - ED pills, reproductive organ enlargement, members of royalty looking for help managing their finances - they tend to be very simply designed. But their distinguishing feature isn't simplicity of design. It's the carelessness. Typos, bad grammar, highly visible formatting mistakes, etc. When, on occasion, one of that "old school" spam messages tries to pose as a legit transactional e-mail, you can see through the deception by noticing the carelessness in replicating the design of the company being impersonated.

azernik 5y ago
> And speaking of universal heuristic, in my experience, the quality and relevance of content is strongly inversely correlated with the quality of design. The prettiest websites out there are ones that deliver negative value. The best designed (according to modern trends) user interfaces are the ones with worst ergonomy, wasting user time the most. This is just plain untrue, and seems to color your impression of email as well. See e.g. Delta vs Southwest (more polished look is more ergonomic site/app), or New Relic vs Datadog public-facing sites (indistinguishable in "quality" of the design, for competing products where IMO Datadog is better). What are some examples that put the inverse correlation in your mind?

smsm42 5y ago

V1gr4 spam isn't nicely designed, but marketing we-arent-really-spam-because-we-have-unsubscribe-link spam - surely is. That includes political marketing too, of course, selling politicians is just another form of selling.