Lack of Support

Web browsers have come a long way over the years, but email clients’ HTML-rendering skills have not. And I’m ok with that. If I may blatantly steal from the great Jeffrey Zeldman here,

Companies spend hours crafting layouts that may not work in Eudora or Gmail, or may no longer work in Outlook…Even in programs that support the crap code used to create these layouts, all that hard visual work will go unseen if the user has unchecked “View HTML Mail” in their preferences…As for CSS, it is partially supported in some e-mail applications and in web apps like Gmail, but only if you author in nonsemantic table layouts and bandwidth-wasting inline CSS. (Zeldman, 2007)

I recently got an HTML email from MacHeist and it exemplifies perfectly why support for HTML emails is a major problem:

In the screenshot above, there are eight display errors in a section about 700×700 pixels. That’s a huge ratio, especially considering the time and effort that obviously went into creating it. The email was rendered by Gmail on a MacBook Pro.

Lack of Necessity

The second, more significant problem with HTML email is that it’s completely unnecessary. Email was not intended for “designed content.” It is a medium for messages. Granted, the web is too, but the web is a rich platform offering and delivering much more. Email is not. Email is for discussion.

Imagine if text messages could be designed. (I’m sure it’s coming soon.) Your mom would send you texts in giant, pink letters saying “HPPY BRTHDY 2 U!” and you’d hate it. Because that’s “not what texting is for.” That’s not what email is for either. What’s the difference? Someone tried it in email. And we didn’t kill them. An oversight on our part, for sure.

Worth pointing out: Zeldman wrote his brilliant post about HTML email just shy of 3 years ago. And it’s even more true today.

HTML email sucks.

Related posts:

1. Your Brand Sucks: Branding Strategies & Tips
2. On CSS Tables
3. WordPress Comment Notification Emails are Broken

The Myth

Most people think branding is a collective identity comprised of logos, websites, graphics, color schemes, print promos, stationary, etc. Most peolple think that branding success follows a formula similar to witty name + catchy slogan + fancy graphics × social networks = strong brand. Most people are wrong.

The Good News

That stuff still matters. Don’t fire your designers or throw out your promo material. These things are part of your brand, they’re just not the whole piece. They’re visual representations of your brand. Granted, they are usually the most identifiable pieces, but in the end, they are not the most important parts of your brand.

The Bad News

The bad news is that real branding—the important stuff—is even harder than the visual part.

What is Branding?

Branding is a conversation. Branding is the process of evoking an emotional response from consumers. Branding is associating a feeling with your organization. Branding is not about what your logo looks like. It’s about who you are. It’s an association of your name with your reputation. Spend less time worrying about stamping your logo all over the place and more time worrying about your prime directive.

I’ve intentionally left this post rather vague. What’s good branding strategy for one company might be bad for another, and I’m no expert. But I’ve done enough reading and studying of marketing to understand that branding is often blamed for a lot of problems that aren’t its fault.

What’s the point?

A great logo won’t save a failing company and a bad logo won’t kill a great company. Brand yourself as a “great company” by acting that way and everything else will fall in place.

Related posts:

1. HTML Email Sucks