Why limit customers, preventing them embedding images and adding attachments - forcing them to look to alternatives when you could provide this service - and make more money.
All you need is a fee structure that acknowledges that attachments and embedded images (attachments) put additional load on your network infrastructure that has to be paid for.
I've seen lots of discussions justifying why embedded images (attachments) aren't recommended but there is no doubt that the economics for clients with high VALUE rather than high VOLUME lists may be in favour of using these methods even when the network infrastructure costs are taken into account.
Hi Tim, welcome to the forums. We really appreciate the constructive suggestions here, however I'd like to note that our reasons for not supporting image or embedding or file attachments are not at all monetary. It's been our principle to provide additional services and app improvements to our customers free of charge (eg. worldview, social sharing), regardless of the costs incurred in running them.
It's our understanding that the increased initial download size, unreliability and attachments that embedded images create can result in a degraded experience for email recipients. For this reason, its inclusion is not in our future plans.
For similar reasons, we're not keen on supporting the sending of attachments, as they are a potential security risk and create a speed and bandwidth burden, especially if the email recipient has a slow connection, or are paying for data on a mobile device.
In this scenario, senders can always host files on their own servers, or using a free service like Mediafire.
Thanks again for your feedback, Tim. As well as providing a good experience for designers and our clients, we're also keen to keep things swell for subscribers, too. Let us know if you have any questions about the above - as always, I'd be happy to assist.
Thanks for your response.
On the flip side. Linked images provide a poor user experience for users who read their mail offline e.g. having downloaded it to their mobile device whilst in a wi-fi area, linked images would require them to use their valuable bandwidth at an inconvenient moment.
Linked images also provide a poor user experience when they are slow to load at peak email open times whereas embedded images more reliably spread the load and ensure a fast experience for the user at email open time.
You are right to be concerned about bandwidth for users, however all mail clients provide preferences to allow users to choose if they want to download images or not - if you don't embed the images you don't provide users with the option...
Fundamentally, this is a feature that many email marketers want and need - you are forcing those who do want and need this to look for an alternative service unneccessarily... The other features that you mention are valuable and why it's worth having this dialogue with you rather than simply abandoning the service... Generally you're policies and application are excellent but you are incorrect not to offer the option for users to embed images.
For some lists and clients, linked images are appropriate, for others, embedded images - blanket no embedded images is not right. Rigid services don't generally win, services that are flexible and adapt to customer needs do.
Your comments about reliability apply equally to allowing marketers to edit their own HTML and CSS - marketers have no desire to lose subscribers / readership so they will ensure that their creatives are cross mail client reliable just like they have to with HTML and CSS.
Thanks Tim, we'll certainly take your rationale into consideration here. We may run tests in the future to see if the situation has changed and will most certainly let you know if we make embedding images available to customers. Many thanks again!
Is there any feedback on the consideration of my rationale?
Did you run any further tests? - I had read the results of your previous testing and there were other users clearly in agreement with my perspective...
Hi Tim, admittedly we haven't had much interest expressed in this over the last two months, so while it's on the radar, it most likely won't be introduced anytime soon. In terms of testing, you may be interested in our latest blog post on the maximum file size of an HTML email - there is another perspective here that I'd be keen to hear your opinion on in the blog comments.
I came across this post after searching your forums to find out if you did indeed support embedded images in emails. I have a potential client that would like to make use of this service but specifically requested for an image embedded option. The reason is their target market are subscribers who have limited internet access at their work place. These subscribers can only view email messages that are text only or emails that have embedded images. Text only messages are not sufficient for them as they are marketing products that the subscriber needs to see.
I support previous requests and submit my own request to have this feature added to your already fantastic service. Will you consider this?
Hi Vertopia, welcome to the forums! Admittedly this isn't a request that comes around very often, so it's not likely to be something we add in the near future, especially given the state of inline image support. But we'll certainly give it our consideration and let you know if it's something we add :)