SlideShare una empresa de Scribd logo
1 de 63
HTML vs. TEXT


             DC Web Women
“Blacklists, Whitelists and Read All Over”
              June 17, 2003

                             Gabriela Linares
                               VP Marketing
                                             © 2003 L-Soft
Industry Research – Study #1
Source: Survey of E-Mail Format Preferences and Programs, Dr. Ralph F. Wilson,
April 2003 - N=954




                                                                      © 2003 L-Soft
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
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
Industry Research – Study #1
Source: Survey of E-Mail Format Preferences and Programs, Dr. Ralph F. Wilson,
April 2003 - N=954




                                                                     © 2003 L-Soft
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
© 2003 L-Soft
Industry Research – Study #1
Source: Survey of E-Mail Format Preferences and Programs, Dr. Ralph F. Wilson,
April 2003 - N=954




                                                                     © 2003 L-Soft
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Poll on HTML vs. Text preference - #2
Readers of “Splash” and “E-zine Tips”, N=600, February 2003




                                                              © 2003 L-Soft
Poll on HTML vs. Text preference - #2
Readers of “Splash” and “E-zine Tips”, N=600, February 2003




                                                              © 2003 L-Soft
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Preferred e-mail advertisement formats
        worldwide, Q1 2002- #3


            3%


                 35%            HTML
                                Text
         62%                    Rich Media




                                  © 2003 L-Soft
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
HTML vs. Text issues




                       © 2003 L-Soft
HTML vs. Text issues
Tracking recipient behavior




                              © 2003 L-Soft
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
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
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
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
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
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
Evaluate options




                   © 2003 L-Soft
Evaluate options
   HTML & Text:
     • Offer two separate
       mailing lists if possible
     • Provide recipient with
       alternative at registration




                                     © 2003 L-Soft
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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

Más contenido relacionado

Similar a Htmlvstext

Jarrar: Knowledge Engineering- Course Outline
Jarrar: Knowledge Engineering- Course OutlineJarrar: Knowledge Engineering- Course Outline
Jarrar: Knowledge Engineering- Course OutlineMustafa Jarrar
 
楽天における機械学習アルゴリズムの活用
楽天における機械学習アルゴリズムの活用楽天における機械学習アルゴリズムの活用
楽天における機械学習アルゴリズムの活用Rakuten Group, Inc.
 
MS-Word.doc
MS-Word.docMS-Word.doc
MS-Word.docbutest
 
Data Mining Xuequn Shang NorthWestern Polytechnical University
Data Mining Xuequn Shang NorthWestern Polytechnical UniversityData Mining Xuequn Shang NorthWestern Polytechnical University
Data Mining Xuequn Shang NorthWestern Polytechnical Universitybutest
 
Machine Learned Relevance at A Large Scale Search Engine
Machine Learned Relevance at A Large Scale Search EngineMachine Learned Relevance at A Large Scale Search Engine
Machine Learned Relevance at A Large Scale Search EngineSalford Systems
 
SurveyAnalytics MaxDiff Webinar
SurveyAnalytics MaxDiff WebinarSurveyAnalytics MaxDiff Webinar
SurveyAnalytics MaxDiff WebinarQuestionPro
 
SurveyAnalytics MaxDiff Webinar Slides
SurveyAnalytics MaxDiff Webinar SlidesSurveyAnalytics MaxDiff Webinar Slides
SurveyAnalytics MaxDiff Webinar SlidesQuestionPro
 
Wikimedia Foundation, Trust & Safety: Cyber Harassment Classification and Pre...
Wikimedia Foundation, Trust & Safety: Cyber Harassment Classification and Pre...Wikimedia Foundation, Trust & Safety: Cyber Harassment Classification and Pre...
Wikimedia Foundation, Trust & Safety: Cyber Harassment Classification and Pre...Melissa Moody
 
IRJET- Suspicious Email Detection System
IRJET- Suspicious Email Detection SystemIRJET- Suspicious Email Detection System
IRJET- Suspicious Email Detection SystemIRJET Journal
 
Tips for Effective Data Science in the Enterprise
Tips for Effective Data Science in the EnterpriseTips for Effective Data Science in the Enterprise
Tips for Effective Data Science in the EnterpriseLisa Cohen
 
Tommi kramer 2013-06-21-caise-re2-kramer
Tommi kramer   2013-06-21-caise-re2-kramerTommi kramer   2013-06-21-caise-re2-kramer
Tommi kramer 2013-06-21-caise-re2-kramercaise2013vlc
 
Non Functional Requirements in Requirement Engineering.pdf
Non Functional Requirements in Requirement Engineering.pdfNon Functional Requirements in Requirement Engineering.pdf
Non Functional Requirements in Requirement Engineering.pdfJeevaPadmini
 
Maxdiff webinar_10_19_10
 Maxdiff webinar_10_19_10 Maxdiff webinar_10_19_10
Maxdiff webinar_10_19_10QuestionPro
 
Practical Applications of Machine Learning in Cybersecurity
Practical Applications of Machine Learning in CybersecurityPractical Applications of Machine Learning in Cybersecurity
Practical Applications of Machine Learning in Cybersecurityscoopnewsgroup
 
Preserving the Inputs and Outputs of Scholarship
Preserving the Inputs and Outputs of ScholarshipPreserving the Inputs and Outputs of Scholarship
Preserving the Inputs and Outputs of Scholarshiptsbbbu
 
Assigning semantic labels to data sources
Assigning semantic labels to data sourcesAssigning semantic labels to data sources
Assigning semantic labels to data sourcesCraig Knoblock
 
Risk Management for LLMs
Risk Management for LLMsRisk Management for LLMs
Risk Management for LLMsSri Ambati
 
Part 1My Discussion Please check with Ulrich’s Periodical Dir.docx
Part 1My Discussion Please check with Ulrich’s Periodical Dir.docxPart 1My Discussion Please check with Ulrich’s Periodical Dir.docx
Part 1My Discussion Please check with Ulrich’s Periodical Dir.docxdanhaley45372
 

Similar a Htmlvstext (20)

Jarrar: Knowledge Engineering- Course Outline
Jarrar: Knowledge Engineering- Course OutlineJarrar: Knowledge Engineering- Course Outline
Jarrar: Knowledge Engineering- Course Outline
 
楽天における機械学習アルゴリズムの活用
楽天における機械学習アルゴリズムの活用楽天における機械学習アルゴリズムの活用
楽天における機械学習アルゴリズムの活用
 
MS-Word.doc
MS-Word.docMS-Word.doc
MS-Word.doc
 
Data Mining Xuequn Shang NorthWestern Polytechnical University
Data Mining Xuequn Shang NorthWestern Polytechnical UniversityData Mining Xuequn Shang NorthWestern Polytechnical University
Data Mining Xuequn Shang NorthWestern Polytechnical University
 
Security Data Quality Challenges
Security Data Quality ChallengesSecurity Data Quality Challenges
Security Data Quality Challenges
 
Text Mining
Text MiningText Mining
Text Mining
 
Machine Learned Relevance at A Large Scale Search Engine
Machine Learned Relevance at A Large Scale Search EngineMachine Learned Relevance at A Large Scale Search Engine
Machine Learned Relevance at A Large Scale Search Engine
 
SurveyAnalytics MaxDiff Webinar
SurveyAnalytics MaxDiff WebinarSurveyAnalytics MaxDiff Webinar
SurveyAnalytics MaxDiff Webinar
 
SurveyAnalytics MaxDiff Webinar Slides
SurveyAnalytics MaxDiff Webinar SlidesSurveyAnalytics MaxDiff Webinar Slides
SurveyAnalytics MaxDiff Webinar Slides
 
Wikimedia Foundation, Trust & Safety: Cyber Harassment Classification and Pre...
Wikimedia Foundation, Trust & Safety: Cyber Harassment Classification and Pre...Wikimedia Foundation, Trust & Safety: Cyber Harassment Classification and Pre...
Wikimedia Foundation, Trust & Safety: Cyber Harassment Classification and Pre...
 
IRJET- Suspicious Email Detection System
IRJET- Suspicious Email Detection SystemIRJET- Suspicious Email Detection System
IRJET- Suspicious Email Detection System
 
Tips for Effective Data Science in the Enterprise
Tips for Effective Data Science in the EnterpriseTips for Effective Data Science in the Enterprise
Tips for Effective Data Science in the Enterprise
 
Tommi kramer 2013-06-21-caise-re2-kramer
Tommi kramer   2013-06-21-caise-re2-kramerTommi kramer   2013-06-21-caise-re2-kramer
Tommi kramer 2013-06-21-caise-re2-kramer
 
Non Functional Requirements in Requirement Engineering.pdf
Non Functional Requirements in Requirement Engineering.pdfNon Functional Requirements in Requirement Engineering.pdf
Non Functional Requirements in Requirement Engineering.pdf
 
Maxdiff webinar_10_19_10
 Maxdiff webinar_10_19_10 Maxdiff webinar_10_19_10
Maxdiff webinar_10_19_10
 
Practical Applications of Machine Learning in Cybersecurity
Practical Applications of Machine Learning in CybersecurityPractical Applications of Machine Learning in Cybersecurity
Practical Applications of Machine Learning in Cybersecurity
 
Preserving the Inputs and Outputs of Scholarship
Preserving the Inputs and Outputs of ScholarshipPreserving the Inputs and Outputs of Scholarship
Preserving the Inputs and Outputs of Scholarship
 
Assigning semantic labels to data sources
Assigning semantic labels to data sourcesAssigning semantic labels to data sources
Assigning semantic labels to data sources
 
Risk Management for LLMs
Risk Management for LLMsRisk Management for LLMs
Risk Management for LLMs
 
Part 1My Discussion Please check with Ulrich’s Periodical Dir.docx
Part 1My Discussion Please check with Ulrich’s Periodical Dir.docxPart 1My Discussion Please check with Ulrich’s Periodical Dir.docx
Part 1My Discussion Please check with Ulrich’s Periodical Dir.docx
 

Último

Boost Fertility New Invention Ups Success Rates.pdf
Boost Fertility New Invention Ups Success Rates.pdfBoost Fertility New Invention Ups Success Rates.pdf
Boost Fertility New Invention Ups Success Rates.pdfsudhanshuwaghmare1
 
Strategies for Unlocking Knowledge Management in Microsoft 365 in the Copilot...
Strategies for Unlocking Knowledge Management in Microsoft 365 in the Copilot...Strategies for Unlocking Knowledge Management in Microsoft 365 in the Copilot...
Strategies for Unlocking Knowledge Management in Microsoft 365 in the Copilot...Drew Madelung
 
Navi Mumbai Call Girls 🥰 8617370543 Service Offer VIP Hot Model
Navi Mumbai Call Girls 🥰 8617370543 Service Offer VIP Hot ModelNavi Mumbai Call Girls 🥰 8617370543 Service Offer VIP Hot Model
Navi Mumbai Call Girls 🥰 8617370543 Service Offer VIP Hot ModelDeepika Singh
 
MS Copilot expands with MS Graph connectors
MS Copilot expands with MS Graph connectorsMS Copilot expands with MS Graph connectors
MS Copilot expands with MS Graph connectorsNanddeep Nachan
 
AWS Community Day CPH - Three problems of Terraform
AWS Community Day CPH - Three problems of TerraformAWS Community Day CPH - Three problems of Terraform
AWS Community Day CPH - Three problems of TerraformAndrey Devyatkin
 
Powerful Google developer tools for immediate impact! (2023-24 C)
Powerful Google developer tools for immediate impact! (2023-24 C)Powerful Google developer tools for immediate impact! (2023-24 C)
Powerful Google developer tools for immediate impact! (2023-24 C)wesley chun
 
MINDCTI Revenue Release Quarter One 2024
MINDCTI Revenue Release Quarter One 2024MINDCTI Revenue Release Quarter One 2024
MINDCTI Revenue Release Quarter One 2024MIND CTI
 
Ransomware_Q4_2023. The report. [EN].pdf
Ransomware_Q4_2023. The report. [EN].pdfRansomware_Q4_2023. The report. [EN].pdf
Ransomware_Q4_2023. The report. [EN].pdfOverkill Security
 
Apidays Singapore 2024 - Modernizing Securities Finance by Madhu Subbu
Apidays Singapore 2024 - Modernizing Securities Finance by Madhu SubbuApidays Singapore 2024 - Modernizing Securities Finance by Madhu Subbu
Apidays Singapore 2024 - Modernizing Securities Finance by Madhu Subbuapidays
 
Why Teams call analytics are critical to your entire business
Why Teams call analytics are critical to your entire businessWhy Teams call analytics are critical to your entire business
Why Teams call analytics are critical to your entire businesspanagenda
 
Repurposing LNG terminals for Hydrogen Ammonia: Feasibility and Cost Saving
Repurposing LNG terminals for Hydrogen Ammonia: Feasibility and Cost SavingRepurposing LNG terminals for Hydrogen Ammonia: Feasibility and Cost Saving
Repurposing LNG terminals for Hydrogen Ammonia: Feasibility and Cost SavingEdi Saputra
 
Corporate and higher education May webinar.pptx
Corporate and higher education May webinar.pptxCorporate and higher education May webinar.pptx
Corporate and higher education May webinar.pptxRustici Software
 
Architecting Cloud Native Applications
Architecting Cloud Native ApplicationsArchitecting Cloud Native Applications
Architecting Cloud Native ApplicationsWSO2
 
Web Form Automation for Bonterra Impact Management (fka Social Solutions Apri...
Web Form Automation for Bonterra Impact Management (fka Social Solutions Apri...Web Form Automation for Bonterra Impact Management (fka Social Solutions Apri...
Web Form Automation for Bonterra Impact Management (fka Social Solutions Apri...Jeffrey Haguewood
 
"I see eyes in my soup": How Delivery Hero implemented the safety system for ...
"I see eyes in my soup": How Delivery Hero implemented the safety system for ..."I see eyes in my soup": How Delivery Hero implemented the safety system for ...
"I see eyes in my soup": How Delivery Hero implemented the safety system for ...Zilliz
 
Apidays New York 2024 - The Good, the Bad and the Governed by David O'Neill, ...
Apidays New York 2024 - The Good, the Bad and the Governed by David O'Neill, ...Apidays New York 2024 - The Good, the Bad and the Governed by David O'Neill, ...
Apidays New York 2024 - The Good, the Bad and the Governed by David O'Neill, ...apidays
 
GenAI Risks & Security Meetup 01052024.pdf
GenAI Risks & Security Meetup 01052024.pdfGenAI Risks & Security Meetup 01052024.pdf
GenAI Risks & Security Meetup 01052024.pdflior mazor
 
Manulife - Insurer Transformation Award 2024
Manulife - Insurer Transformation Award 2024Manulife - Insurer Transformation Award 2024
Manulife - Insurer Transformation Award 2024The Digital Insurer
 
Apidays Singapore 2024 - Building Digital Trust in a Digital Economy by Veron...
Apidays Singapore 2024 - Building Digital Trust in a Digital Economy by Veron...Apidays Singapore 2024 - Building Digital Trust in a Digital Economy by Veron...
Apidays Singapore 2024 - Building Digital Trust in a Digital Economy by Veron...apidays
 

Último (20)

Boost Fertility New Invention Ups Success Rates.pdf
Boost Fertility New Invention Ups Success Rates.pdfBoost Fertility New Invention Ups Success Rates.pdf
Boost Fertility New Invention Ups Success Rates.pdf
 
Strategies for Unlocking Knowledge Management in Microsoft 365 in the Copilot...
Strategies for Unlocking Knowledge Management in Microsoft 365 in the Copilot...Strategies for Unlocking Knowledge Management in Microsoft 365 in the Copilot...
Strategies for Unlocking Knowledge Management in Microsoft 365 in the Copilot...
 
Navi Mumbai Call Girls 🥰 8617370543 Service Offer VIP Hot Model
Navi Mumbai Call Girls 🥰 8617370543 Service Offer VIP Hot ModelNavi Mumbai Call Girls 🥰 8617370543 Service Offer VIP Hot Model
Navi Mumbai Call Girls 🥰 8617370543 Service Offer VIP Hot Model
 
MS Copilot expands with MS Graph connectors
MS Copilot expands with MS Graph connectorsMS Copilot expands with MS Graph connectors
MS Copilot expands with MS Graph connectors
 
AWS Community Day CPH - Three problems of Terraform
AWS Community Day CPH - Three problems of TerraformAWS Community Day CPH - Three problems of Terraform
AWS Community Day CPH - Three problems of Terraform
 
Powerful Google developer tools for immediate impact! (2023-24 C)
Powerful Google developer tools for immediate impact! (2023-24 C)Powerful Google developer tools for immediate impact! (2023-24 C)
Powerful Google developer tools for immediate impact! (2023-24 C)
 
+971581248768>> SAFE AND ORIGINAL ABORTION PILLS FOR SALE IN DUBAI AND ABUDHA...
+971581248768>> SAFE AND ORIGINAL ABORTION PILLS FOR SALE IN DUBAI AND ABUDHA...+971581248768>> SAFE AND ORIGINAL ABORTION PILLS FOR SALE IN DUBAI AND ABUDHA...
+971581248768>> SAFE AND ORIGINAL ABORTION PILLS FOR SALE IN DUBAI AND ABUDHA...
 
MINDCTI Revenue Release Quarter One 2024
MINDCTI Revenue Release Quarter One 2024MINDCTI Revenue Release Quarter One 2024
MINDCTI Revenue Release Quarter One 2024
 
Ransomware_Q4_2023. The report. [EN].pdf
Ransomware_Q4_2023. The report. [EN].pdfRansomware_Q4_2023. The report. [EN].pdf
Ransomware_Q4_2023. The report. [EN].pdf
 
Apidays Singapore 2024 - Modernizing Securities Finance by Madhu Subbu
Apidays Singapore 2024 - Modernizing Securities Finance by Madhu SubbuApidays Singapore 2024 - Modernizing Securities Finance by Madhu Subbu
Apidays Singapore 2024 - Modernizing Securities Finance by Madhu Subbu
 
Why Teams call analytics are critical to your entire business
Why Teams call analytics are critical to your entire businessWhy Teams call analytics are critical to your entire business
Why Teams call analytics are critical to your entire business
 
Repurposing LNG terminals for Hydrogen Ammonia: Feasibility and Cost Saving
Repurposing LNG terminals for Hydrogen Ammonia: Feasibility and Cost SavingRepurposing LNG terminals for Hydrogen Ammonia: Feasibility and Cost Saving
Repurposing LNG terminals for Hydrogen Ammonia: Feasibility and Cost Saving
 
Corporate and higher education May webinar.pptx
Corporate and higher education May webinar.pptxCorporate and higher education May webinar.pptx
Corporate and higher education May webinar.pptx
 
Architecting Cloud Native Applications
Architecting Cloud Native ApplicationsArchitecting Cloud Native Applications
Architecting Cloud Native Applications
 
Web Form Automation for Bonterra Impact Management (fka Social Solutions Apri...
Web Form Automation for Bonterra Impact Management (fka Social Solutions Apri...Web Form Automation for Bonterra Impact Management (fka Social Solutions Apri...
Web Form Automation for Bonterra Impact Management (fka Social Solutions Apri...
 
"I see eyes in my soup": How Delivery Hero implemented the safety system for ...
"I see eyes in my soup": How Delivery Hero implemented the safety system for ..."I see eyes in my soup": How Delivery Hero implemented the safety system for ...
"I see eyes in my soup": How Delivery Hero implemented the safety system for ...
 
Apidays New York 2024 - The Good, the Bad and the Governed by David O'Neill, ...
Apidays New York 2024 - The Good, the Bad and the Governed by David O'Neill, ...Apidays New York 2024 - The Good, the Bad and the Governed by David O'Neill, ...
Apidays New York 2024 - The Good, the Bad and the Governed by David O'Neill, ...
 
GenAI Risks & Security Meetup 01052024.pdf
GenAI Risks & Security Meetup 01052024.pdfGenAI Risks & Security Meetup 01052024.pdf
GenAI Risks & Security Meetup 01052024.pdf
 
Manulife - Insurer Transformation Award 2024
Manulife - Insurer Transformation Award 2024Manulife - Insurer Transformation Award 2024
Manulife - Insurer Transformation Award 2024
 
Apidays Singapore 2024 - Building Digital Trust in a Digital Economy by Veron...
Apidays Singapore 2024 - Building Digital Trust in a Digital Economy by Veron...Apidays Singapore 2024 - Building Digital Trust in a Digital Economy by Veron...
Apidays Singapore 2024 - Building Digital Trust in a Digital Economy by Veron...
 

Htmlvstext

  • 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
  • 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

Notas del editor

  1. 45% of casual users compared to 77% of business users have high-speed access
  2. 98-99
  3. 104