Time to kill the "view as a web page" link?
Latest posts | Feed | By Mark Brownlow
One suggestion that popped out of the European Email Marketing Summit last week was to remove the "online version" link from the top of your emails.
[Cue flushed eyeballs, mass astonishment and the thudding sound of one audience member hitting the floor after fainting.]
Heresy!
Or is it?
Let's look at the numbers.
The average unique click-to-open rate for that link in my newsletters, for example, is 0.66%. Or a 0.22% unique CTR the way most people measure their clickthrough rate (as a percent of "delivered" email).
If I told you that an offer or article link in the prime real estate right up top of your emails gets a 0.22% CTR, would you keep it in there?
No, you'd replace it with something more valuable.
Hmmm. This needs more thought...
Run the numbers
First, find out how many people actually use that link. If you have an image-heavy email design, you might find the "online version" link does a good job for you. People might use that link if images are blocked.
The same might be true if your design is breaking in a particular webmail interface or email client. (In which case, you should think about modifying your design.)
If your emails look fine wherever they are viewed, even when images are blocked, then your "online version" link probably isn't getting many clicks.
Consider the value
If the click numbers are very low, can you use the space for something that offers you and the recipient more value?
But don't forget...the value of the "web version" link is not just measured in clicks. Here, for example, are two reasons I'll stick with the link.
First, it's an insurance policy.
If an email client upgrade (think Outlook 2007) or an unannounced change at a webmail service plays havoc with the email's layout, subscribers can fall back on that link.
I hope they never have to use it, but it's there if they do.
Second, some of those "web version" clicks might be your most valuable recipients.
These are folk who maybe can't see your message properly in their email client. But instead of just moving on, they make the effort to view the online version...suggesting they're more engaged with your messages than most.
One of my best subscribers explained to me how he likes to visit every article link in the newsletter, but this is impractical if it means switching from email client to browser and back again. He needed that "web version" link.
Consider the size of the link
If you want to keep the link, you might still reconsider how much space you're giving it.
Can you replace...
"If this email does not display properly, then click here to view the web version" (15 words)
...with...
"View email as a web page" (6 words)
...or even...
"Web version" (2 words)
...and use the space saved for another call to action or useful link?
[See more on that topic in the Better preheaders? Six ideas to consider... post from January.]
So...what do you think? Will you keep the "web version" link in your emails?
Get posts like this: as an RSS feed | biweekly email | via Twitter
12 Comments:
Definitely a great point Mark. I think we need to continue to question the standard practices of email marketing. Many of them are not founded on solid science.
Thanks for the sound advice and non-biased view.
By 
Adam Covati, on
19 May, 2009
The whole idea of the external view link was to help get the email seen due to rendering issues and image blocking.
With the invention of snippets in gmail, yahoo and some views in Outlook this has become part of of Trust Earning Text to also utilise the additional 'real-estate' in the inbox.
There is loads of room to put other things above this link but the link should be above any image banner and subsequent images to allow the whole email to be read.
Additionally with tabbed browsing people are no longer inclined to go back and forth from email client to browser, they would rather hit the external view link and move around in tabs.
I suppose one step would be to have the main call to action at the top and then on click through have the rest of the stories from the email available in the menu bar. Almost like a micro-site per email?
By captaininbox, on
19 May, 2009
We use these to help out people reading our newsletters on Blackberries and other smart phones.
With our B2B audiences email triage via phone is a definite reality. For my audience many of the people clicking on these View as webpage links fall into this category.
We write out the link too instead of writing view this as a webpage or we just say "View Online" if need to save space.
By 
, on
19 May, 2009
captaininbox - I've seen some newsletters have a menu bar on landing pages to access other email content. Depends on your goals I think: others might argue that you want people to take action at the landing page and not get distracted by other content (unless that other content is the desired action!)
I'm in favor of keeping the link (also because of Luke's mobile argument) but also keeping it short.
By , on
19 May, 2009
Thanks Luke, yep, the mobile argument is very convincing. Even those with other audiences might find more people using the link as mobile email spreads around the consumer world, too. But still think people need to do the numbers and make an informed decision, rather than just "doing it because it's done."
By , on
19 May, 2009
The browser link is a nice Insurance policy to have, until css/html renders well across all platforms and css layout becomes the norm, and certain platforms catch up I feel it needs to be in there.
Although if coded correctly an email campaign should never break up that much that it can't be viewed without the user getting the main message, although image blocking can be the main issue
By Lewis Bilsland, on
20 May, 2009
Lewis: agree the insurance policy aspect is a very big argument in favor of keeping it, at least until rendering standards get established.
By , on
20 May, 2009
It is good to question all the usual conventions. But until gmail stops mashing emails and stripping out CSS I won't even consider removing the link. As long as it makes life easier for even a few of my readers it is worth the space IMHO.
By wbw_Jeff, on
20 May, 2009
Jeff, yep, we each have to make our own value judgment here. I'm keeping it, for example.
For those wondering about Gmail and CSS, the Email Standards Project explains why designers get snappy about Gmail.
By , on
20 May, 2009
Mark this is a very interesting topic and what shown not to long ago by Southwest Airlines. They excluded the click here for online version and replaced it with a call to open email test.
This could be a great place for social media sharing and could mean the diffrence of it going viral or not.
By , on
01 June, 2009
Thanks Chris. Buy.com also dropped the "view online" link recently. See Chad White's post.
By , on
01 June, 2009
For now with the email platforms people use so varied and often changing the link it still useful. Until email clients all include a button to view as webpage on their interfaces it is a solid backup for delivery, especially with B2B mails as many companies still use old installs of Lotus Notes.
I definately think that most recipients are used to email standard practices, so the link should be as short as possible and take up very little retail space. I often include another short link next to it as well, either a forward to a friend, share to social, change preferences (text/html) or add to address book as applicable to the campaign. This means that the one line of text can serve to be more productive.
In general I try to make them non-intrusive and effectively act as the whitespace padding at the top of the design.
By Bex White, on
10 October, 2009
Comments closed for this post
