Forum Moderators: phranque
This would impact
- conversions (text is typically lower than HTML),
- open rate tracking (you would only be able to track completely "opened" e-mail not e-mail viewed completely in the preview window),
- the outlook for growth in HTML and rich media e-mail.
My first thought was that this is a reaction to sp^m p^rno photos and that it would diminish the outlook for growth in e-mail publications overall. Hopefully, Microsoft will change it around and make the default preview window HTML and the text only preview window an option.
It seems that this is a reaction to viruses, more than anything. By disabling code they are protecting whatever remains of their reputation, as far as security is concerned.
Is it overkill? I'm not a computer engineer so I'm not qualified to judge.
MS is just reacting to market pressures I think. Personally we delete all HTML emails and all emails with attachments before they even get to the mailbox. For sure we get 90 to 95% spam, but Im sure more and more people will be like us in future.
If this move reduces the amount of the HTML email and virus attempts that is uselessly downloaded by our server all for the better.
HTML may convert better, but its only for a short time. This will just put a dying promotion tactic out of its misery quicker. Its a great pity, but the ease in which people can spam or send viruses by email and the difficulties in combating it has caused the demise of email marketing, and devalued email as a useful personal and business communication method.
We get 50 emails a day that are legit, the other 450 or even more are spam. We already know in our offcie that the really important leads come from that cranky old fax machine. That will happen to others soon too.
Well done Microsoft. Maybe this will help in reviving the usefulness of email
Anyway I am not sure what the fuss is about as using the present preview pane is a big no no because of the risk of viruses and I have gotten so used to just clicking delete without the need to look into the email.
My preview pane shall always remain firmly closed.
You need to look about half way down the page.
chiyo: You're killing me. "This will just put a dying promotion tactic out of its misery quicker." I run double opt-in newsletters and getting caught in spam filters (false positives, as they say) is a serious and growing problem for me.
I like that you mentioned faxes, though. Wasn't it about 10 years ago that unsolicited faxes were killing off the usefulness of faxes? The machines were humming with fax spam.
Then, in the U.S. anyway, they put a $500 fine for each unsolicited fax. Now, unsolicited faxes aren't a big problem.
I think we're going to have to get serious about unsolicited e-mail the way we got serious about unsolicited faxes. I hope we do, anyway.
Learing Curve wrote: >>Then, in the U.S. anyway, they put a $500 fine for each unsolicited fax. Now, unsolicited faxes aren't a big problem.<<
Great idea. If they did that for email, email spam would no longer be a problem too and email can be restored to better functionality. But im sure it cant be done or otherwise somebody would have done it.
Visit Thailand wrote:>>Unsolicited faxes are far more annoying and serious problem though as they actually cost the receiver money, between the two I hate fax spam a hundred times more than email spam.
- for some reason we get a minimal amount of fax spam. And i dont think we pay for incoming faxes (have to check though!). Email spam costs me personally half an hour salary a day in reviewing and deleting, opportunity cost when i actually delete a useful email, many hours in setting up anti spam email programs and keeping them up to date, and online phone and internet connection fees while I download them. We pay for email spam just as much as fax spam, and personally, I think much more.
LEarning Curver wrote:>> I run double opt-in newsletters and getting caught in spam filters (false positives, as they say) is a serious and growing problem for me.<<
Sounds like you are aggreeing with me you need to change your promotion mix! Your problems are due to general problems with the whole area of email marketing which i expounded upon in my first post.
People dont trust email like they used to.
And the ease of the method and the difficulty in identifying the sender means the industry is overun with scoundrels and scummy merchants. That's a great pity for the honest ones who play by the rules like you.
I also suggest that if this move does come about and HTML email becomes less effective, you will find response and conversions for text email will increase. Its all relative after all. Focus on killer text, not pretty pictures and formatting.
I just think objectively that HTML email was a silly idea to start with with a limited lifespan after people got over the "wow" novelty factor. It slows down communication, creates problems for many with reading, and provides holes for viruses. Make killer text and LINK to the brochure or whatever on the web, where such things work much better.
I dont necessarilly dislike HTML email at all. It's just that it has no substantive future in essence, problems being as they are.
It would take a major restucturing of my system. But it's an option.
News.com article [news.com.com]
"We've taken a step backward, so to speak, by blocking external content when you preview e-mail," Simon Marks, Office XP product manager, said this week. Marks described the new feature as an important spam-fighting tool.
The hot topic of the day is spam fighting, so it's natural that MS would spin the change that way more strongly than security. But Bill's security memo/PR release of last year must be a big factor. They've got to be tired of patching the monster holes - it costs them lots of money and lost productivity.
I'm pretty sure, after thinking about this tonight, that my newsletters will look like hell when rendered as text-only. I use tables and have links galore.
Once Outlook 11 gets a decent foothold, I'm most likely going to have to restructure my whole system.
Bummer.
He also said he keeps the non html emails longer as they take up less space on his comp etc.
As for faxes being more expensive I was meaning the paper and ink etc.
