Why HTML Email Might Be Good For Your Congregation
Posted by Anna Belle on 07 Aug 2007 at 05:28 am | Tagged as: Email
Our church has done a weekly email for almost eight years now. In the main, it’s been a great success. However, the last few years we’ve been haunted by formatting issues.
The crux of the problem is that most church members and staff don’t understand how their email clients work. Thus what looks fine on their machines can be a mess on someone else’s. This is particularly true for something like our weekly email, which is initially built in Microsoft Word. Plop the document into Outlook with HTML email turned on, and the results are a disaster. While we know how to stop this problem (turn HTML off and plain text on), we’re at risk every time staff or computers change.
Enter Constant Contact, one of the best-know email marketing services. One of our Communication Committee members happened across it some months ago and signed up for a free trial. Committee members experimented with it and we were impressed. However, we were busy and forgot about it, until the end of the fiscal year came round. When we had a little extra money, one of the co-chairs shrewdly suggested that we dive in.
We did, and the results have been even better than we had hoped. Church members love it, and (surprisingly enough) in many ways it’s easier to produce than a text email. Moreover, on Websters, the listserv for UU webmasters, a couple of people who have been using it for much longer than us (including Dean Goddette — thoughts, Dean?), recently wrote that they too have been very happy with Constant Contact.
If you, like us, have been hovering on the edge of using an HTML email service, I’d recommend giving it a try.
Why Do I Recommend It?
- Both church members and committee members really like it.
- Many think it’s attractive. I’m actually not crazy about the way it looks, but that’s probably just because I’m an HTML snoot. More to the point, I’m clearly in a minority. And really, I don’t think it’s bad. In fact, it’s easier to read than the old text version. My aging eyes appreciate the larger font.
- Managing subscribers is amazingly simple. It only took me about 15 minutes to import our list, and adding new subscribers is a breeze. In fact, they can easily do it themselves…
- I followed Constant Contact’s simple directions, and we now have a nifty newsletter sign-up box on our home page. Not only that, it turns out to be rather clever. I tested it and it knew I was already a subscriber; it refused to let me sign up twice and spam myself.
- Unsubscribing is equally easy for the end user.
- While designing a template for the look-and-feel isn’t the easiest, comparatively speaking it is. In my professional life, I use a comparable service, and Constant Contact’s interface is considerably more intuitive.
- Once the template is set up, it’s easier to produce than plain text emails.
- The company is geared to small businesses, and nonprofits.
- It’s relatively inexpensive. One year’s service is under $300 for us.
- A user can receive it in plain text if they’d prefer or if they have a firewall that prevents HTML email.
The Drawbacks?
- It’s an ongoing cost. But compare it to other ongoing costs, such as the Yellow Pages, and the value becomes more obvious.
- The WYSIWYG interface can be temperamental. We had one link that absolutely refused to match others. I finally had to go in and force its hand using raw HTML.
- I’m told that when producing it, response time can be incredibly slow on some machines.
The Bottom Line
If you’re interested in it and think it might meet your congregation’s needs, give it a whirl. They have a free 60 day trial. So far, we’re delighted with it.

A certain nonprofit I know is moving from Constant Contact to a local install of phplist, but I’ve found the former to be a good product, too.
That said, this nonprofit only sends out text email.
Anna Belle,
When my congregation’s leadership has asked about HTML-based email newsletter tools like Constant Contact, I’ve advised against them for the following reasons:
(1) HTML-formatted email is a dangerous computer security practice — The full details can be found in the following computer security article that comes from the Washington Post’s Brian Krebs “Security Fix” blog:
Do Away With HTML Based E-mail
In this article, Krebs makes the following points:
“But it gives Security Fix a good excuse to remind readers that viewing your e-mail in anything other than plain text mode is asking for trouble on a Windows computer.
Most e-mail software comes configured to relay messages both in text-only mode and HTML format, which allows for the rendering of graphics and other Web-based content. But blindly accepting HTML content from third parties is a bad idea on a number of levels. The most dangerous threat is HTML content that enables the silent downloading of malicious software. In addition, even if you’ve never replied to a single piece of junk e-mail, spammers can tell if they’ve got a working e-mail address if you merely view one of their HTML-based e-mail ads.”
“Likewise, sending e-mail in HTML mode is just a bad idea all around, and these days, it’s a recipe for making sure the messages you send get caught in the recipient’s junk mail folders. That’s because in an effort to bypass anti-spam technologies that look for spammy words in the body of the e-mail, a huge percentage of spam now arrives embedded in HTML code and in images.”
(2) HTML-formatted email may be rejected or formatting stripped out of recipient’s email — Due to the computer security issues mentioned in item #1, some users disable HTML-formatting. Corporate and government computer administrators will do the same. My work email account is set up have the HTML email toggled off. Most commercial email I see is an ugly jumble of HTML code until I toggle the HTML back on.
If you use plain text, your email will show up with you having more control about how it looks. It will also be compatible for users of PDA-based email (e.g. blackberrys, smart phones, etc).
For more information on the problems with using HTML-based or MIME-encoded email, check out the following web article:
What is wrong with sending HTML or MIME messages?
http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
Scott — Thanks for the heads up about phplist. I hadn’t heard of it before.
Steve — I hear you. I probably was the least enthusiastic on the committee about doing this, for reasons related to what you talk about. I was also expecting more backlash, and it could yet happen, but so far all that I have heard has ranged from pleased to very pleased. And it’s eased some of our crazy production problems. It was unbelievable how hard it was for non-techies to produce a text email at times. I never in my wildest dreams thought text-email could be such a disaster. It reached an all-time low about a year ago when somehow (don’t ask me how), it added huge amounts of JavaScript to the email. It was not only unreadable, it was scary to many. One other thing that gives me solace: Constant Contact makes it possible to receive the email in text rather than HTML on an individual basis. This addresses some, though not all, of these concerns.
I started using Constant Contact for my choir in Chicago, and we were extremely happy with it. The company itself has a good reputation for their anti-spam practices, and many major organizations use it as well — like Powell’s in Portland, the Writer’s Almanac, and the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, for a couple of diverse examples.
HTML email is more an more common, and most email clients have a feature to disable images only rather than all HTML code — GMail has the ability to remember which senders you would like to enable images from and turns off those from anyone else, which I find extremely useful.
If your e-newsletter is composed in Word it’s already page-oriented…so what’s wrong with making a PDF file (many free tools available) and sending it as an attachment? Offer free tech support to those who don’t already have a reader installed - these days there are unlikely to be many.
Jess — That’s a great reminder about Gmail. Many thanks. I actually do that very thing in it with the emails I get from your blog. In its case, I say turn them on.
Mark — Good question. We actually do that with our regular newsletter, though we no longer send it as an attachment, because it’s too big. Instead we upload it and point members to the link. For our weekly email, our aim is to be highly readable. Unfortunately, some people won’t read PDFs, or if they do, they don’t like them. Our biggest goal is to be read by the most people possible, and it seems HTML email wins the prize for that. Or at least that’s our sense based on early returns.
RE: sending PDFs
Many mail clients don’t automatically show you the PDF, forcing you to open it separately, whereas HTML email most people can at least read the text without doing anything extra except maybe enabling the graphics. For a large number of people who use a web-based email client (Yahoo, HotMail, etc), an attachment is a barrier to reading the email.
Good point, Jess. Another downside with PDFs is that they often have a large size, which can endanger some people’s email accounts. You go over your size limit and your email account goes kaput. As storage costs go down, that’s less of an issue, but it’s still an important consideration. For example, if you save your email locally, then you have more to backup and it eats up your hard drive over time.