What's more efficient in terms of open/click rate, simple text emails or professional-looking HTML emails?

Personal simple text emails.

wouldn't wanna look like a newsletter, mate

@pugson It's interesting. How do you know it ? Did you check it with A/B testing in the past ? Maybe it also depends on mail content.

It differs across projects, but simple text seems to work best for me. Have not tested this as a formal A/B test, but have seen higher open rates with simple text.

@jeremieca Yeah, I've tested some emails and the ones that looked like a person wrote them had the largest amount responses. Of course it also depends on the subject line and content.

Depends on the context and specifically the relation you have with your newsletter subscriber and they have with you.

If you want it to feel personal a plain text email (or a HTML version that looks like it*) is probably better.

On the other hand, if e.g. you are a bakery and doing a sale on your newest cakes you want to include photos, etc in which case a rich HTML email would be a better fit.

  • Reason you might want to go with an HTML version even if you make it look like plain text is because it gives you more flexibility in terms of adding tracking links while still making them look like regular links, etc.