Very nice. HTML email and horribly arcane <table> code are like peanut butter and chocolate - messy to assemble, but you can't argue with the result.
When I saw the first pic, I wondered if this would just be generating an image, or using complicated CSS (which can be problematic for older email clients), but using tables to achieve a result that should work in most clients, and show up even with images turns off, is pretty sweet.
The only thing better would be some screenshots as to how this actually appears in various versions of Outlook, Thunderbird, GMail, etc.
Thank you for doing this. I laugh whenever I open the plaintext version of an email and it still has the default text of "Insert a text version of your message here for users without images to read"!
"The result is a bad first impression for new mail-ees."
What's a "new mail-ee"? I hope it's not a spam target.
Sending HTML email is what gives a bad impression. If you want to send an HTML document, or an image or PDF file, send an attachment. If it's HTML, then, in the unlikely event I want to see it, it'll open in my browser, and this ridiculous hack won't be required.
We have this discussion here every time someone posts about email marketing, and someone else says email is stupid.
Your average HN user does not statistically resemble your average business customer to any degree. People here may hate email, especially HTML email, but there are orders of magnitude more people out there who are thrilled by emails full of cat pictures and inspirational quotes than there are of us.
Email marketing prints money. Well-managed email lists are often rated as one of the best business assets a small business can have. The OP presents a good way to show customers interesting content that they may enjoy, without requiring them to open an attachment, or risk privacy issues by allowing images.
It may be a "ridiculous hack," but only because of the ridiculous state of affairs of rich-text email. And besides, most of what we applaud here on HN could be termed "ridiculous hacks." :)
I love email, but "Email marketing" sounds like a euphemism for spam. It may "print money"; so may telemarketing for those willing to stoop to that.
"ridiculous state of affairs of rich-text email" : it works fine; thanks to MIME, you can send me any kind of document you want. The problem is with some people and some mail software sending out bare HTML without using MIME attachments. But it sounds like these guys are doing this part right.
EDIT: I'm obviously not talking about opt-in newsletters and the like. People who use phrases like "email marketing" and "printing money" generally are not talking about these acceptable forms of email.
I'm sure that for some people, "email marketing" means sending spam. But my comments were entirely in the scope of legitimate, legal, opt-in email marketing.
Any tool can be used for good or for evil. I feel it's unwise to assume that just because people talk about profit in the context of delivering content to customers that they are black-hat. Plenty of white-hat people are savvy to these terms, and these techniques are very useful when trying to run a business while practicing "don't be evil."
Your edit is wrong; this is exactly what people mean when they say email marketing. Opt-in are the only kind of email products allowed on major email marketing platforms like MailChimp or Exact Target.
No, you don't have that. You have tens of thousands of uncontrolled estimates, without any comparison points, or systematic or objective data collection.
Sort of implied by me being the only test subject, no? Let me try again without the confusing humor element: HTML email gives a bad impression to me and people who share my prejudices and attitudes.
> Sort of implied by me being the only test subject, no?
Not at all. For example, you could be sent the same email with a difference separated by a period of months, where the 2 versions of the email are directly compared (sort of a within-subjects design). Or the difference could be randomly applied to all incoming emails, and then the overall populations compared (between-subjects).
I just saw your work on LSD microdosing. I really admire your dedication to finding something out through careful experimental design. This is an example of an experiment where self-blinding was possible, but I don't see how it would be possible in testing my own reactions to something that, by definition, I would need to be aware of. So, yes, A/B testing would not be possible here on myself. That's what I had in mind.
"For all you know, you still click more and get more out of the HTML emails"
I never click on them, so there is no question here. Really, I don't need a formal testing regime to know that HTML email sends me a bad signal any more than I do to know how I feel about people wearing obscenity-bearing tshirts.
When I saw the first pic, I wondered if this would just be generating an image, or using complicated CSS (which can be problematic for older email clients), but using tables to achieve a result that should work in most clients, and show up even with images turns off, is pretty sweet.
The only thing better would be some screenshots as to how this actually appears in various versions of Outlook, Thunderbird, GMail, etc.