Re: Text vs. HTML Emails Ads
Rob Frankel wrote:
> HTML Cons:
>
> 1. Over 80% of the country is still on dial up
> 2. HTML crashes many browser and mail apps
> 3. HTML takes longer to compose
Although I side with Rob, in that given a choice I will
usually choose text because it is quicker and since I use
Netscape, the HTML only works 99% of the time.
There are a few, very few, composers of HTML e-mail who
really know how to use the HTML to advantage without
getting in the way of the message.
Here is what I have observed that works well:
1) Graphics are few, light and used effectively to brand
the communication, or in those few instances that a
picture really is worth the thousand words you could
have sent in its place.
2) Tables are not attempted.
3) Font sizes and colors help the reader to scan the
important information.
4) No banner ads (Text ads are actually more effective
than banners in e-mail anyway, why waste the bandwidth?)
5) Hyperlinks include the url they are leading to.
6) Hyperlinks can be used effectively to link from the table
of contents at the top of the e-mail to the section.
Bottom line: Use HTML only when its use will assist the
recipients to better use the information you are giving them.
--
Miki Dzugan
MARKnETING
(phone) 651.454.5323
(email) mdzugan_at_markneting.com
http://www.MARKnETING.com
Weaving the Web into Marketing Results
Received on Thu Feb 07 2002 - 08:38:22 CST
