3 ms·
I did some A/B testing on this a few years ago and found that HTML email had a better response rate for me. My methodology wasn't perfect, but I shared the res
by joshfraser 14y ago
I did some A/B testing on this a few years ago and found that HTML email had a better response rate for me. My methodology wasn't perfect, but I shared the results on my blog anyway:
http://www.onlineaspect.com/2008/01/25/the-value-of-split-testing/ http://www.onlineaspect.com/2008/01/25/the-value-of-split-te...
- huhtenberg 14y agoThat was 4 years ago. Things change way too fast for your sampling to remain relevant for this long.
- adrianhoward 14y agoIt's been what I see in tests too. A well designed HTML mail will generally beat a plain text mail in response rates... including the one we did for $client last week ;)
- nihonjon 14y agotroll elsewhere
- mindctrl 14y agoThe DIY guys say text wins. http://diythemes.com/thesis/html-or-text-emails/ http://diythemes.com/thesis/html-or-text-emails/ Personally I prefer short text ones.