4 ms·
I wonder, has there been any research into whether HTML newsletters lead to better engagement than plaintext ones? Intuitively, it feels like plaintext mails sh
by stdbrouw 15y ago
I wonder, has there been any research into whether HTML newsletters lead to better engagement than plaintext ones? Intuitively, it feels like plaintext mails should work better because they look less like a commercial message and more like the sort of thing your friends would send you, but that's just a hunch.
- duck 15y agoI've seen a lot of articles on it with varying data and results, but I think the answer is it depends on your audience and goals. Your intuition is dead-on and is usually the main argument for plaintext emails. I run Hacker Newsletter (http://hackernewsletter.com http://hackernewsletter.com) and had looked into doing just plaintext, but found it was too hard to skim because of all the links. The other big factor is how much you want to track. For me, it is key to know what is popular so I can adjust what I pick over time to include what my subscribers like more.
- tomos 15y agoI remember reading this http://whichtestwon.com/archives/15976 http://whichtestwon.com/archives/15976 (I managed to view it before you had to pay) - and plaintext won. This site summarises the test: http://www.blueglobalmedia.com/blog/which-converts-better-text-or-image-based-email http://www.blueglobalmedia.com/blog/which-converts-better-te...