View Full Version : Press release html or txt?
07-15-2005, 11:48 AM
Is there a general preference for HTML or plain text when you send out press releases? I'm thinking HTML would be preferable since you can have live links to click, which is less effort for the news folks. Any advice on this?
07-15-2005, 11:51 AM
I would say that TXT is better. There is no need for HTML.
Majority of email clients make the links clickable anyways.
07-15-2005, 12:53 PM
i turn off html in my reader, most net-savvy people do. I dont trust html rendering for any spam or viruses. text all the way. In fact, when I get an html only email, I just delete it, I never find I miss much doing that.
07-15-2005, 01:15 PM
i turn off html in my reader, most net-savvy people do. I dont trust html rendering for any spam or viruses. text all the way. In fact, when I get an html only email, I just delete it, I never find I miss much doing that. That's a broad, sweeping statement that has no basis in reality. ;) I've got excellent anti-virus (PC Cillin) and Thunderbird doesn't display the HTML elements of spam-suspected emails. And since Thunderbird uses the same rendering framework that Firefox is using, I feel comfortable opening any HTML message that comes my way.
That said, I can understand that many net-savvy people that still use insecure clients and have no, or not very good anti-virus protection would want to delete all HTML messages. However, the discussion is whether press releases should be sent in HTML or text, and thus the audience is clearly not yourself. Of course, I agree that receiving an HTML press release is far more likely to be sent to the trash than a text-only release. Not to mention the fact that the sites would most likely want to format the release as they see fit.
07-15-2005, 01:45 PM
Press Releases should be both text and HTML (so dont use graphics but do use bold, italics, and a nice looking font/sized font). If the other end is viewing text only then it is ok, otherwise it looks slightly better.
That said, given the choice between the two, text is better than HTML for press releases. HTML is better than text for newsletters.
I have also turned of html rendering in my email client and I only view it when I'm sure I can trust the source.
But I think most people will prefer HTML-Newsletter, it can even pay your more attention if your recipient has activated html.
Im wondering if you use multipart-mail using a HTML and a PLAIN-TEXT body, can this cause any problems on TEXT-ONLY clients?
07-15-2005, 11:54 PM
Im wondering if you use multipart-mail using a HTML and a PLAIN-TEXT body, can this cause any problems on TEXT-ONLY clients? Not if they fully support the protocol (which they should).
Not if they fully support the protocol (which they should).
So why not always use multipart-mails? On mail clients with html they look great because you can use a nice font or logo or whatever and on mail clients with text still everthing is readable.
07-16-2005, 12:10 AM
So why not always use multipart-mails? On mail clients with html they look great because you can use a nice font or logo or whatever and on mail clients with text still everthing is readable. Because some people want to receive text-only emails, even though their client supports both (and will show HTML).
07-16-2005, 12:53 AM
Windows XP sp2 fixes the html leaks in outlook, and norton scans all incoming mail. My isp also scans mail for viruses.
HTML makes up most of the mail I subscribe to.
07-19-2005, 08:02 AM
I know some people who simply refuse to use html mail messages. Simply for the fact that we would lose many potential clients, we're planning on using plain text messages over html.
07-19-2005, 08:33 AM
Windows XP sp2 fixes the html leaks in outlook
Minor correction: WinXP SP2 fixed all of the known html leaks at the time of its release. ;) And since then I couldn't even tell you how many more patches to IE/Outlook Express I've applied, but it's a lot.
To answer the original question from a consumer perspective, I like html e-mail when it's not full of images and it's well formatted. Unfortunately I don't get many like that.
From a theoretical business perspective (theoretical because I have no practical experience to back this up), I don't want to be annoying and I don't want my e-mails to be automatically blocked by a filter that gives high spam points to html e-mail, so I'd send text only.
07-19-2005, 10:18 PM
The plain text is better than html. Some people don't even receive html messages. Another reason is that coping text from plain message is more simple than from html (you don't need to remove formatting).
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.1.3 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.