HTML Newsletter Software (to send and track)

[myatia]

Hi, all,

My organization is currently sending text-only newsletters to our members. We'd like to move to HTML newsletters, which would improve the formatting and allow us to track open and click-through rates.

Can anyone recommend a software package or web-based campaign service they've used? Also, does anyone have any recommendations on whether or not to send them in-house or through a service?

Here are my specs, if it helps. Let me know if you need any more info.

* Webserver (IIS) and mail server (Domino) run in-house

* Web programming done with ASPs

* Several staff members are already using FrontPage to update our web site

* We have a dedicated systems manager for our 25-person organization. I handle all web programming and some, but not all, of the web server maintenance.

* We will be sending between 15,000 - 40,000 emails a month, with at most about 5,000 going out at once.

* We have 4-5 different newsletters which are sent out periodically, and we would like to design our own templates for the newsletters.

* We have a large database with our members' information, and would probably need to just export CSV files to whatever program/service would be sending the emails. Also, we want to be able to do mail merges (insert info like names, passwords, addresses, etc. from our database into emails).

Any help would be great! Thanks so much!

 

[WizyWyg]

May I suggest that you continue to only send text formatted emails so as you do not steal the resources and space of those you are sending it to; and within such email provide a link to the HTML version that will be hosted on your site (hence, using your resources).

SAVE HTML for the World Wide Web, meaning that many email systems and readers have now implemented the use of turning your beautiful done HTML newsletter into utter, unreadable garbage ( settings in recent releases of Outlook give the user the options to receive, or turn email into plain text anyway). Many sysops have opted to not even handle HTML emails by dumping them straight at their routers, because of the numerous security issues involving HTML emails, one that is, tracking users who receive them (you do realize that many internet readers hate the notion that their activities can be tracked, as you want to do by sending them emails).

HTML is a dangerous application to include in emails because of WEBBUGS, tracking information that can be passed on, viruses, hoax, phishing attempts (hiding the real URL behind the HTML source of an email ), cookies, malformed coding (java script gone awry can cause email applications to crash, causing your users to be even more flipant about the receiving of html emails ).

HTML is for hte World Wide WEb.
Email should never contain HTML (to the ire of MS or others)

 

[WizyWyg]

Here are some consenting and opposing views; you make your own decisions:

Style Without Substance: Will HTML Email Survive?

http://evolt.org/article/Style_Without_Substance_Will_HTML_Email_Survive/25/60204/

Why Developers Don't Want HTML Email

http://evolt.org/article/view/25/781/

How HTML Email Invades Your Privacy

http://email.about.com/library/weekly/aa121100a.htm

HTML Email

http://www.vexen.co.uk/notes/htmlemails.html

Friends Don't E-Mail Friends HTML

http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,41639,00.html

Sending HTML emails, the final word

http://www.codestore.net/store.nsf/unid/EPSD-5EQPZA?OpenDocument

A Beginner's Guide to Effective Email

http://www.webfoot.com/advice/email.top.html

Why HTML email is bad

http://www.favreau.info/display.php?page=html_email

Why are HTML emails a security hazard?

http://www.modwest.com/help/kb9-210.html

 

[BillyRayPreachersSon]

>> May I suggest that you continue to only send text formatted emails so as you do not steal the resources and space of those you are sending it to;

I disagree entirely.

The members will presumably subscribe to the newsletter, and thus want to see the information contained. If I were a member, I'd enjoy seeing it provided in a nice way, as plain old text can be too boring for newsletters.

With even the slowest modems around today, downloading a small HTML email newsletter takes virtually no time at all... So I also don't think speed is an issue either.

Dan

 

[EdwardMartinIII]

I prefer preparing beautiful online newsletters, and then sending people text-based e-mail. The e-mail lists a few tantalizing highlights and links to the online newsletter.

This way, I reduce my throughput per e-mail, people get the highlights (think of it as receiving a table of contents), and can dig deeper if they like. One of my newsletter ships about 300 copies (I know, small potatoes). 3k of text versus 50k of an HTML newsletter makes a big difference to my e-mail server (I'll serve scads of junk through my website instead of my e-mail ISP, thank you very much).

Another bonus to this is that my newsletter is now a permanent part of my archives (quite a few people tell me they'd rather NOT subscribe, but want to browse the online archives when they get a hankering) and is searchable by various web browsers and other organizations who like to link to such things.

So, it's the best of both worlds, really. Besides, I like writing those little teaser lines to get people to look over the site! Fun, fun, fun!

Cheers,


Edward

"Cut a hole in the door. Hang a flap. Criminy, why didn't I think of this earlier?!" -- inventor of the cat door

 

[WizyWyg]

>> May I suggest that you continue to only send text formatted emails so as you do not steal the resources and space of those you are sending it to;

I disagree entirely.

The members will presumably subscribe to the newsletter, and thus want to see the information contained. If I were a member, I'd enjoy seeing it provided in a nice way, as plain old text can be too boring for newsletters.

With even the slowest modems around today, downloading a small HTML email newsletter takes virtually no time at all... So I also don't think speed is an issue either.

Dan


Most newsletteres in HTML Format weight heavily at 10-22 kb. I subscribe to 30 newsletters and 35 mailing lists. IF all them decided to do HTML only, and are received on a daily basis; do the math. Im only alotted a 6 meg inbox with my ISP (10 being at my other).

ALL reputable, and great newsletters offer a plain text version to be sent and the OPTION to choose HTML if the reader would have it that way (did you read the links I posted about how many are now shunning sending HTML emails?).

I've never chosen HTML emails for the fact that they are a sECURITY risk, and on my email server, all html email are sent back to the sender to resend as PLain text only. Some sysops won't even provide that courtesy.

Members dont presume anything, and YOU're wrong to presume that they do. A newsletter is supposed to give me information; i dont care if it looks nice or is just a bunch of links; point is, if your html is shoddy, why would I want to look at it? I can view crappy html on the web; I dont want it in my email program.

 

[BillyRayPreachersSon]

>> I subscribe to 30 newsletters and 35 mailing lists.

Then cut down on the number if you have a problem with the amount you receive.

>> Im only alotted a 6 meg inbox with my ISP (10 being at my other).

That's not my problem. I have no such restriction... Maybe you could find a better ISP, or host your own mailbox?

>> ALL reputable, and great newsletters offer a plain text version to be sent and the OPTION to choose HTML if the reader would have it that way

Absolutely. I agree with that entirely. So I'm at a loss to understand why you advised to send text-only emails instead of advising to give the user a choice?

>> Did you read the links I posted about how many are now shunning sending HTML emails?

Yes - they were mostly very anti-HTML email, and thus not a very fair selection of links to show both sides of an argument. You are clearly anti-HTML email.

>> I've never chosen HTML emails for the fact that they are a sECURITY risk

And that's your call, for mails that you receive.

>> Members dont presume anything, and YOU're wrong to presume that they do.

So you presume.

>> If your html is shoddy, why would I want to look at it?

My HTML is never shoddy, and always very clean and pleasant to look at. I cannot speak for your own, however, as I've never seen it.

>> I can view crappy html on the web; I dont want it in my email program.

That's fine. That's your right, and I'm not going to try and change the way you operate.

My gripe was that you instantly said that HTML emails were bad, gave a load of links to show that they were bad, and the one time you vaguely discussed the possibility of giving the user an option, quickly changed your mind and went straight back into the negative side of things.

Now - don't get me wrong here... I certainly wasn't only suggesting being pro-HTML mail... My message was simply disagreeing on a personal level with yours.

Giving the user the option is surely the best method. That way, they get to choose, rather than have someone with a clear dislike of HTML email force a solution upon them that they may not be happy with.

Dan

 

[BabyJeffy]

OK, back on topic please. This is not a discussion on the ethics of HTML email (move to the Ethics forum for that). Myatia was asking about a software package or compaign service that would enable HTML emails to be delivered. Let's focus on the question at hand.

We use HTML emails on the intranet at work - in fact we send both HTML and plain text as part of the same message (and let Outlook display whatever the user chose to customise to). We decided to allow HTML emails because there was no restriction of bandwidth or server space (given the fact it was all internal).

I have never used any 3rd party software tool to build these emails, nor any online campaign service/tool. I built a solution that allows the users to generate these emails using JSP and a simple content management system,

I would be very interested in hearing about specific software tools (windows is our environment - probably yours too) that would allow generation (any sending?!) of such emails.

Jeff

 

[Foamcow]

Myatia

Try Microsoft's ListBuilder service at bCentral (

http://www.bcentral.com)

It's reasonably priced and provides tracking facilities.

It also sends multipart messages so there is an HTML AND a text component to each mail sent.

Hope that is more helpful that simply being told not to do it.

 

[YNOTU]

[tt]See if these help

1.

http://www.newsweaver.ie/newsweaver_page.asp?p=features

2.

http://www.bigwebmaster.com/1966.html

3.

http://www.html-email-marketing.com/e-newsletter.htm

[/tt]

 

[myatia]

Thank you for your comments. I do understand the downside of sending HTML emails. Perhaps I should have been more clear. Obviously, we are going to give users the option of choosing whether to receive an HTML or text-only version. We already do this for one of the HTML-formatted newsletters we send.

I do have some comments in response:

> May I suggest that you continue to only send
> text formatted emails so as you do not steal
> the resources and space

As a reference given by WizyWyg himself (herself?) points out (and just to be clear, I did read them all), "f 53% of recipients prefer plain text, a large number still like HTML email" (evolt.org). If a person voluntarily signs up for the HTML version, are their resources being stolen?

> HTML is a dangerous application to include in
> emails because of WEBBUGS, ....viruses, hoax

Attachments are also a danger in this sense. Obviously, you have to be responsible about what you are sending and the choices that are given to those who receive your mailings.

If you are a legitimate organization (which we are) trying to build a relationship with your member or customer base and not a spammer, you are basically shooting yourself in the foot by not listening to what your users want, or worse still, to send them messages that do irrecoverable damage to their system. Not only is that person going to be pissed at you, but so will conceivably everyone in her address book, as she has the power to email everyone she knows, telling them what a stupid system-crashing jerk you are.

I see where I am going to get flamed on the tracking issue -- users are obviously wary of this, it's not what they want. I will take your comments under advisement, and will ensure that our signup page has a clear tracking policy next to it that explains why we are collecting the info. We are a professional organization (non-profit) for CPAs, and we want to use the information to see what topics our members are most interested in so that we can improve the newsletters. I know that surveys and the like are an option to do this, but we have enough problems getting our Board of Directors to fill out evals, let alone average Joe Member.

> I prefer preparing beautiful online newsletters,
> and then sending people text-based e-mail.

We already archive all of our newsletters online, and provide a link to the current newsletter at the top of the text-only newsletters. I am reluctant to move our newsletters fully online because it puts a barrier between the user and the message. When I'm in my inbox, I'm there to read all of my messages, not stop and then jump to the web and then jump back and finish reading my other emails. It disrupts my workflow. We're not using the newsletter as a device to attract traffic to the site; we're using it to inform our members about new tax legislation, new services/features of the organization, etc.

So those are my thoughts. If anyone has any comments about software they use to send HTML emails, I'm still interested in hearing them. (Thanks, foamcow, for your suggestion.)

Misty

 

[WizyWyg]

>> I subscribe to 30 newsletters and 35 mailing lists.

Then cut down on the number if you have a problem with the amount you receive.


Sorry, not possible. All 30 newsletter cover from everything I do for "fun" and for my own protection (security notices, product upgrades, etc). Telling me to "cut down" is like telling you, well, you to stop using the computer because you REALLY do not need one.

>> Im only alotted a 6 meg inbox with my ISP (10 being at my other).

That's not my problem. I have no such restriction... Maybe you could find a better ISP, or host your own mailbox?

do you honestly think that all isp do not place such a restriction? Suggest you talk to your ISP about the actual amt they alot you. You'd be surprised that they do only give you a limited space.

And what about those people in countries that do not have the option to "change" isp's? What about those that are still charged for every minute they are online? Those on PDA's with "charge" by useage time (html emails are shown to take longer to download than text emails)? Cell phones?


>> ALL reputable, and great newsletters offer a plain text version to be sent and the OPTION to choose HTML if the reader would have it that way

Absolutely. I agree with that entirely. So I'm at a loss to understand why you advised to send text-only emails instead of advising to give the user a choice?

HTML is still a problematic issue. I stated that most reputable newsletter will offer the choice, but all it takes is one malformed coded html email to get an ire up amongst readership. Hosting the "HTML" version only on the sender's own website with a link is the best option.



>> Did you read the links I posted about how many are now shunning sending HTML emails?

Yes - they were mostly very anti-HTML email, and thus not a very fair selection of links to show both sides of an argument. You are clearly anti-HTML email.

Mostly anti, html because people in interenet security recognize the inherrent risk and problems with them. By the way, most of those LINKS were found just by googling
HTML EMAILS. If a "majority" of those links are anti-html, and those were found in the first two pages of results, you dont need too much common sense to know or say to yourself "well, there's all these articles about not sending HTML, maybe there's something wrong with that idea".

Yes Im anti-html, FOR emails. HTML belongs on the World Wide Web, not in my inbox.

>> I've never chosen HTML emails for the fact that they are a sECURITY risk

And that's your call, for mails that you receive.

And the call of many users; majority.

Members dont presume anything, and YOU're wrong to presume that they do.

So you presume.

As proven by the links posted, many companies are now shying away from sending html emails. Blame the spammers; blame virus writers; blame shoddy email programs.


If your html is shoddy, why would I want to look at it?

My HTML is never shoddy, and always very clean and pleasant to look at. I cannot speak for your own, however, as I've never seen it.

So you say. I've never seen your "work" either, so who knows if yours isn't. All it takes IS ONE, badly formed email and that's all is needed to make a user not want to accept it.

>> I can view crappy html on the web; I dont want it in my email program.

That's fine. That's your right, and I'm not going to try and change the way you operate.

Unlike your statement in the first of this posting? "cut down". If i "cut down" then you get rid of your computer? Deal?


My gripe was that you instantly said that HTML emails were bad, gave a load of links to show that they were bad, and the one time you vaguely discussed the possibility of giving the user an option, quickly changed your mind and went straight back into the negative side of things.

Because if the rest of the internet recognizes that HTML email has no place in email, I think its something that should be brought out so people know just exactly why it has no place in email.


Now - don't get me wrong here... I certainly wasn't only suggesting being pro-HTML mail... My message was simply disagreeing on a personal level with yours.

Giving the user the option is surely the best method. That way, they get to choose, rather than have someone with a clear dislike of HTML email force a solution upon them that they may not be happy with.

And many will find, that the effort to making an html email look good, but users choose only the plain text version, will quickly realize how much time they are wasting in doing so.

 

[myatia]

> Because if the rest of the internet recognizes
> that HTML email has no place in email, I think
> its something that should be brought out

I looked at my inbox today and found an HTML message from Amazon.com, which I would generally include in "the rest of the internet". It's just one example, I know, but I think it's a pretty big one.

> Sorry, not possible. All 30 newsletter cover from
> everything I do for "fun" and for my own protection

What about the 35 mailing lists you brought up earlier? Also, you implied they come on a daily basis, so, "doing the math" as you put it, where between all these critical must-read emails do you find the time to post here or even work for that matter? Just curious.

I'm just kidding. I don't want to get too personal. I absolutely believe you should have the choice to subscribe to that many emails and not be shut out by their file size. It doesn't really prove your point, though, because you're receiving perhaps a couple more opt-in emails than the average user. If anything, it just proves that you should always give people the option whether to receive text-based or HTML emails so they can decide what works best for their individual circumstances.

 

[WizyWyg]

I looked at my inbox today and found an HTML message from Amazon.com, which I would generally include in "the rest of the internet". It's just one example, I know, but I think it's a pretty big one.


Amazon is also known to spam its past customers, when they've chosen to "opt" out of their mailings. Known as Mainsleaze spammers.

Rules #1-#3 in the book of rules of spammers. I would "trust" spammers "opinions" as far as I can throw them.


What about the 35 mailing lists you brought up earlier? Also, you implied they come on a daily basis, so, "doing the math" as you put it, where between all these critical must-read emails do you find the time to post here or even work for that matter? Just curious.

On average, my emails are between 1kb - 5kb at most for each message sent to these mailing lists and newsletters. At 100-300 messages a day, that's would hardly make a dent in my inbox.

I once received and HTML newsletter that was 100kb. Imagine that im not the only one who received it. I never asked for it to be sent to me in HTML format (i checked plain text), but still received an HTML formatted version. Imagine if i got 100-300 messages that average 75 kb a day?

Do the math.

 

[YNOTU]

Yawn!

​

 

[Vragabond]

http://www.tek-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?SQID=663322&SPID=215

For some more insightful conversations about html formatted emails.

 

[BillyRayPreachersSon]

I echo dwarfthrower's sentiments in that post for this post ;o)

Dan

 

[KSiva]

Try this :

http://www.mailmailer.com

Sivakumar Kandaraj
System Administrator,Web Programmer
Melbourne
Australia.