People have made all the standard points about the pros and cons of each, and I won’t repeat them. The lack of uniformity between eMail clients (so much worse than differences across web browsers) does make this a tough area.

However, one “pro” for HTML that no one has mentioned yet is the “M” aspect: markup. You can define the relationship of elements on the page in a semantic way, specifying headings etc. For short messages this isn’t usually important, but for a larger eMail this can really help people to understand the structure of the content.

It’s slightly odd to me that a business that specialises in the professional enhancement of this method of communication would blanket assume that people embrace HTML mails. Why not adopt a similar attitude as Campaign Monitor and sniff out the clients Mail app to see whether they’ve got HTML activated (or whatever magic it is that they do) so that a plain text mail is delivered if it’s disabled.

I’d think more of your service and brand if I wasn’t sent HTML messages with the guts showing…

ps. Campaign Monitor doesn’t actually do the sniffing successfully for Entourage but I know that that at least they are trying.

The lack of standard. Ability to abuse.

“Are these people who want text-only emails also using text-only browsers? Do they live mundane, text-only lives?”

No we don’t. I *personally* prefer text only emails, I’ve set my mail client (now Thunderbird, previously Outlook Express) to only display text version of emails - I don’t like getting HTML emails.

“don’t you think that you lose the branding aspect with text only e-mails. I think that’s quite important”

Yes, you do lose it, but to what extent is the question - I personally agree with Paul’s comment “The fact that it comes from ‘Company X’ is branding enough for me”. Important, maybe, but not as important as my preference to read text only.

“Although whatever you send out should be in the standard ‘text with html version attached’ format that lets people get the crap version in lynx”

It works fine for me as text only.. it’s been done that way.

I’d love to see how you guys coded your email. I guess I could just wait to get it, though. :)

Totally opposite for me. I feel like I can scan HTML emails much faster than text emails. The proper use of font size, weight, color, etc. all help to make the information easier to digest (not just prettier to look at).

As with everything though, it’s all in the execution.

I don’t really think there is a branding aspect with emails, nor that there needs to be. The fact that it comes from “Company X ” is branding enough for me, I don’t want or need a corporate logo or a background image.

Personally, I check my email in mutt, and if someone sends me HTML email then I generally have to bounce it to my Gmail account in order to view it properly. Most of the time I just hit the delete button instead, and that person doesn’t get my business (or whatever else they want).

And what’s the argument against HTML emails really? Are these people who want text-only emails also using text-only browsers? Do they live mundane, text-only lives? They could use some Amigo colors in their life.