ã 2003 L-Soft HTML vs. TEXT DC Web Women “Blacklists, Whitelists and Read All Over” June 17, 2003 Gabriela Linares VP Marketing

ã 2003 L-Soft Industry Research – Study #1 Source: Survey of Format Preferences and Programs, Dr. Ralph F. Wilson, April N=954

ã 2003 L-Soft Bible StudyBusiness Yes87.1%93.1% Only Partially7.6%4.5% No5.3%2.4% Respondents HTML Readability Today: Industry Research – Study #1 Source: Survey of Format Preferences and Programs, Dr. Ralph F. Wilson, April N=954

ã 2003 L-Soft Industry Research – Study #1 Source: Survey of Format Preferences and Programs, Dr. Ralph F. Wilson, April N=954 Client Program  Casual users:  Business users: Outlook Express34% AOL 6.0 to 8.017% Yahoo! Mail13% Outlook 98/2000/XP12% HotMail10% Outlook 98/2000/XP48% Outlook Express27% Eudora11%  AOL users: 92% of users studied used version 6.0 and higher and could read HTML

ã 2003 L-Soft Industry Research – Study #1 Source: Survey of Format Preferences and Programs, Dr. Ralph F. Wilson, April N=954

ã 2003 L-Soft Bible StudyBusiness Dial-up Access24.1%41.3% Broadband Access20.3%17.3% Plain Text Preference Industry Research – Study #1 Source: Survey of Format Preferences and Programs, Dr. Ralph F. Wilson, April N=954

ã 2003 L-Soft

 Reasons for HTML preference: Readability (78%) Attractive display (68%) Ease of scanning (64%) Overall design (64%)  Reasons for text preference: Readability (73%) Security from viruses (68%) Ease of saving for future use (63%) Ease of scanning (61%) Download speed (54%) Industry Research – Study #1 Source: Survey of Format Preferences and Programs, Dr. Ralph F. Wilson, April N=954

ã 2003 L-Soft Poll on HTML vs. Text preference - #2 Readers of “Splash” and “E-zine Tips”, N=600, February 2003

ã 2003 L-Soft Reasons for preferring text:  Can't read HTML6%  Just want the meat without the distractions32%  Like to read offline15%  Ads are more intrusive in HTML22%  Slow to download14%  Other11% Reasons for preferring HTML:  HTML can be laid out more effectively28%  Color can be used24%  Images can be included21%  Ads can be more effective in HTML 20% Poll on HTML vs. Text preference - #2 Readers of “Splash” and “E-zine Tips”, N=600, February 2003

ã 2003 L-Soft Preferred advertisement formats worldwide, Q #3 Source: Opt-In News, May 2002

ã 2003 L-Soft  (21%) of consumers use a Spam filter within their messaging programs.  (52%) do not use this type of service and  (27%) are uncertain if they are using a filter feature Use of anti-spam filters - #3a Source: Opt-In News, May 2002

ã 2003 L-Soft Response rates per format- #4 Source: IMT Strategies, Sept. 2001

ã 2003 L-Soft Other Industry Research #5 Source: Debbie Weil, WordBiz Report, N=300, May 2003  One-third publish HTML only  Text-only subscribers are typically less than 50% of list recipients  70% survey respondents prefer HTML

ã 2003 L-Soft Best practices is a moving target- #6 Source: Jupiter Media Metrix, May 2002  Best practices for campaigns are a moving target, depending on campaign objective.  “There is no one best practice for these factors. Only with testing can an campaign be fully optimized”  Audience segmentation, message content and format should be tested prior to rolling out any campaign

ã 2003 L-Soft Anti-Spam filters Spam report from the anti-spam filter product Spam Assassin HTML_FONT_COLOR_RED (0.1 points) BODY: HTML font color is red HTML_MESSAGE (0.0 points) BODY: HTML included in message HTML_LINK_CLICK_CAPS (1.1 points) BODY: HTML link text says "CLICK" HTML_FONT_BIG (0.3 points) BODY: FONT Size +2 and up or 3 and up LINES_OF_YELLING (0.0 points) BODY: A WHOLE LINE OF YELLING DETECTED HTML_LINK_CLICK_HERE (0.1 points) BODY: HTML link text says "click here" HTML_FONT_COLOR_GRAY (0.1 points) BODY: HTML font color is gray HTML_FONT_COLOR_YELLOW (0.0 points) BODY: HTML font color is yellow

ã 2003 L-Soft HTML vs. Text issues Attachments blocked by Anti-Spam & Anti-Virus filters  Embedded images are attachments  Referencing images from web site does not include attachments  A Multi-Part message may include attachments Multipart/Alternative doesn’t have attachment Multipart/Mixed has an attachment Multipart/related has an attachment

ã 2003 L-Soft Design preferences  Both formats are visually appealing to different groups  Both formats are easier to scan according to different groups  Format depends on company’s image & personality  HTML protocol & applications’ inconsistencies - AOL  Text convenient for those readers that need specific information and don’t care about format HTML vs. Text issues

ã 2003 L-Soft Size of message  Larger size for HTML than for text only messages  HTML with embedded images is larger than with referenced images  Slows transmission and download time for dial-up connection users  Recommended maximum size of an message is 15k-20k to not alert mail watcher software HTML vs. Text issues

ã 2003 L-Soft Tracking recipient behavior  HTML allows for tracking open-ups, click-thrus, frequency, date, time, personal data and demographics  Same tracking capabilities available for text messages BUT doesn’t include open-up tracking User reading online or offline  HTML messages with referenced images, will not display correctly when read off-line  Network firewalls sometimes strip HTML messages that contain links to outside sources HTML vs. Text issues

ã 2003 L-Soft Evaluate options  HTML & Text: Offer two separate mailing lists if possible Provide recipient with alternative at registration  HTML only Text-only recipients are not reached Test how message is viewed in different clients Attach images? Or reference web site?  Send multi-part messages Providing alternative for those who cannot read html “Sniffing” technology is not an established protocol therefore is not reliable  Text only Reaches entire audience Cut text at 60 characters Message can be creatively designed and easy to scan

ã 2003 L-Soft Recommendations 1.There is no right or wrong format 2.Determine internal capacity & needs 3.It is all about your recipients: survey them about desired format 4.Consider ISPs’ anti-virus and anti-spam measures – AOL, MSN, Earthlink measures -- which are DYNAMIC 5.Consider personal anti-spam applications 6.Test, test, test