Forum Moderators: open
(1) For some reasons the images don;t show in hotmail. Yes they are absolute, but no, they still don't show. One test, the whole thing won't open in hotmail, but when I set up hotmail in outlook express... it works fine. Email opens, all iamges are there.. What could it be?
(2) His newsletter, when you press "forward" send totally different content to the actula newsletter. It contains something like" Bla bla has forwarded this newsletter to you, you may click on this link to read it, if you wish to receive it in the future click here to sign up." How, on forwarding an email can I get some other message than the mail contents to display?
HTML emails can always provide some furious head-scratching. The truth is, that you can never provide 100% perfection in this arena, but as with the rest of the web, if you define your target audience properly, you can produce something that will look good for most of your audience, most of the time.
Hotmail Rendering
HTML email work best in modern, application-based email clients such as Outlook(*), Outlook Express, Mozilla Mail, etc. Older email clients such as Lotus Notes (the hours of fun I've had!), Eudora, Quickmail, etc all have varying degrees of success at rendering HTML emails.
(*) I've played around with the latest version of Outlook (2004) and to my shock (and interest) by default it wasn't displaying any images in HTML emails.
On the other hand, web-based email is a completely mixed bag. Some services, such as Hotmail are very unkind to your emails, whereas others such as Yahoo! can be perfectly kind.
What you have to get your head round, with web-based services, is that your email with all is HTML is going to be embedded inside another webpage to be displayed to your audience. If web-based email services aren't careful the html in your email can conflict with the rest of the webpage and produce formatting errors. Indeed, in the early days of web-based email this frequently happened.
The other problem you have is the impact of spam on web-based email services. The likes of hotmail & yahoo suffer more than most when it comes to spam, and they are keen to find ways to keep their services usable (and cut bandwidth costs). They will therefore block many emails with over-sales like wording, or obvious bulk mail headers.
Coming back specifically to Hotmail, in May 2003, they implemented an image block, aiming to disrupt bulk mailers use of 1x1 pixel images to track viewing of emails. All new hotmail accounts have the image block turned on by default - it can be found under Options > Mail > Display Internet Images.
The bottom line in this case is that although you won't be able to guarantee that your users will get the image, neither will your competitor with his newsletter.
Forwarding
Your client's competition will constrained by the same parameters as the rest of us. If one of their users clicks the Forward button on their email client, then the same email (possibly slightly disfigured, depending on the email client) will be sent on to the new recipient.
However, what they have done is to code a facility within the email itself where the user can "forward" the email to a friend/colleague. This is relatively simple to do, you create a form like you would in any webpage with (at a minimum) a recipient field and put an action on the form to send the data to an external page on one of your servers.
The page on your server takes this information (and if you're smart, also receives a code to let you know who on your list is interested enough to forward the email) and sends an email on to the new recipient with some friendly text at the top of the email (possibly even a note from their friend/colleague) to let them know why their getting this email.
Hope this helps...
Cheers,
John
I've played around with the latest version of Outlook (2004) and to my shock (and interest) by default it wasn't displaying any images in HTML emails.
I like this feature of Outlook 2004 a lot. You get an HTML email and you rightclick and select Download Pictures.
It's nice feature for people on a slow connection or who don't want to be bombarded with images.
I completely agree with you when you say it's a useful feature. In fact, I think the email marketing community needed something like this. Too many are happy to send emails containing large graphics (I've seen 140kb's worth in some) to their unsuspecting user base. Although their unsubscribe rate may rise above the normal level, they'll do it time and time again.
I think it will focus the issue in the minds of all of us who send html mailers. I for one think it is a good move to protect the majority of web users that are still on narrowband connections. What I would like to see is a way of turning on graphics for all emails from a recipient, as this would provide a way for end users to reward responsible email marketers. However, as I say, I've only taken a quick look at Outlook 2004, so such a feature may exist.
Cheers,
John
... in May 2003, they [hotmail] implemented an image block, aiming to disrupt bulk mailers use of 1x1 pixel images to track viewing of emails.
Very interesting. I haven't used Hotmail in quite some time, but this seems like a sensible move.
All new hotmail accounts have the image block turned on by default - it can be found under Options > Mail > Display Internet Images.
At least they have left users the option of turning them back on.
Last time I sent one out I had a lot of broken image link reports which worried me a lot! No one complained though. I used absolute paths to my images eg h**p://www.mydomain.co.uk/images/foo.gif
Does anyone have any tips or alternative ways of sending HTML mail? Would it be better to use PHP?
There are a growing number of email programs that allow you to edit the text and the HTML portions separately, rather than just stripping the HTML mark-up to create a default text version. This gives you the best of both worlds.
"Click here if you cannot see any images." Or something similar to that.
Naturally, this link leads to the corresponding page on our website.
Since implementing this method, complaints from recipients who "did not get the attachment" or "can't see any pictures" have dropped dramatically.
But if you're going to go that far, why not go all the way and send out a text email with teaser copy and a link to the web page? You'd be amazed how well that works for everyone.
There's something about HTML in an email that just isn't, well, personal. And I go to my inbox mostly for personal communication. That's what I'm looking for, not a slicked up production. If a newsletter looks and reads like a personal communication, then I'm much more likely to dig it.
Unfortunately, we've digressed a bit from the original topic. And I must admit, I haven't been able to get mass HTML emailings through HotMail in any numbers recently. Maybe it would work better if it's just "rich text" but no images - has anyone tried that approach?
That's what I'm looking for, not a slicked up production
I agree totally :) However, there are certain business people who think that HTML email is the best thing since sliced bread, and simply insist on it, no matter about the potential problems caused. These people also love Micro$oft applications, and nasty clip art, and those spinning @ signs for links and.... ooh stop it!
There's a parallel in direct mail -- in the need to make the outside of the package personal enough to get people to open the letter. And then to make the copy inside to READ enough like a real person to keep people engaged.
The other mind-set is what helps advertising houses make big bucks on "image" campaigns and "branding" efforts that do almost nothing to help sales. When it comes to looking good, some people prefer nutrition and exercise, others use make-up.
It also prevents subscribers from using nifty features such as "Forward". In effect, you are excluding a segment of your subscribers by using teaser e-mails, the narrowband users who cannot afford a high-speed connection, and resort to connecting online for a few minutes to retrieve their e-mails before disconnecting again. Of course, if this group of users is not your target, you could safely use this technique. After all, a browser has a better capability towards rendering HTML images, and is probably percieved by the masses as such.
