OK - as you can probably see...

Emails, autoresponders, and deliverability are my latest QUEST!

So -- what are your thoughts on TEXT vs HTML emails.

Both in the opt-in process (selection) and in the creation and delivery (formatting)?

I see a lot of BIG list owners living in one camp or another.

Thoughts?

I'd NEVER use HTML but our market is a little less tech savy. I see Fortin, Makepeace, etc using HTML but I'm sure they've tested it... hopefully.

But I sometimes wonder if Makepeace ever tested really short text based e-mails with links to the Total Package. I'm almost positive he'd get a better CTR. I'd love to see some straight up tests on that to his list.

But for me, I like to alternate between semi-long copy in e-mails, short ones with links, and video. I like to alternate delivery for two reason.

1. I never want to bore the crap out of our list.
2. I want them to consume different types of messages ie: video, longer copy, short copy with link, etc. We want to train them to expect different stuff from us.

You sound like Bill Clinton answering that question Brez... Did you ever give me a straight answer?

LOL

Actually do you remember when Clayton first started TTP -- he used to send two emails one HTML one TEXT with a link to the online letter.

Text emails are easier to get delivered with less spam filter clogging. Some of the services like Aweber let you send it in both formats at once which is a nice feature.

I usually include a link to the same newsletter or email online. According to Aweber, approximately 1/3 of my readers will go read it online where it's formatted nicer and with bigger text.

IF I'm doing a sales pitch to one of my lists, I almost never do it by email. I send them an email to get them onto my site, where I don't have to worry about spam filters and use things like graphics and video to help close them.

Hope that helps,

Mike

We also see a better response with a short text e-mail directing them to a squeeze page.

I've gotten the best CTR% with short text.

I get a whole lot of emails that are in html that get messed up somewhere along the line (and yes, I can receive html). It seems to me that getting right to the point and teasing people to click is much more effective than long emails. Of course I could be wrong. Look at Eben Pagans lonnnngggg emails for his DYD business. I'm sure he's tested it extensively.

I would say it depends largely on what your aim is with the email. Getting people to click through, or building a bond (where clicking would result in less people reading).

JP, you should really be phrasing this as text vs html/plain text alternative.

The difference is basically nill. people like to pretend that spam filters are going to let you by if your email is plain text vs having html AND plain text in it. If your email has enough spam triggers or you or your esp have a bad enough reputation, plain text vs html/plain text alternative doesn't matter.

being lazy and putting in bad html is a different matter

a better question is will having a product shot or supportive image to your great short copy increase response and/or click-through rate

blocked images is a diferent matter and not the mountain people make it out to be

a better question is whether having a tried and true actionable text phrase/s linked without speed bumps in your copy to your landing page vs just a url with possible pointy tricks

hth
big jason