Is a plain text email version important for email deliverability?
Summary
What email marketers say9Marketer opinions
Marketer from Email Geeks shares that plain text emails are really useful for accessibility (screen readers, etc.). They believe the deliverability-specific benefits are minimal these days but might provide a bump for B2B filters if remote images are disabled.
Email marketer from Reddit explains that having a plain text alternative ensures that if the HTML doesn't render correctly (due to email client issues), the recipient can still read the message. It’s a fallback for compatibility.
Email marketer from HubSpot explains that HTML-only emails can potentially trigger spam filters due to missing the plain text counterpart, but also plain text only can miss brand elements. Balancing HTML with a plain-text alternative is important.
Email marketer from Campaign Monitor explains that including a plain text version can help your email pass through spam filters. Spam filters analyze email content and structure, and a well-formatted plain text version shows you're following best practices.
Email marketer from Sendinblue shares that plain text emails can improve accessibility for people using screen readers. Although less visually appealing, plain text versions ensure everyone can access the content.
Email marketer from EmailToolTester shares that even if images are blocked on a user's email client, the user is still able to understand the message being sent by reading the plain text version of the email.
Email marketer from Reddit shares that some older spam filters still check for the presence of a plain text version. Not having one can slightly increase your spam score, though the impact varies.
Email marketer from StackOverflow shares that including a plain text version makes emails more accessible for users with disabilities and ensures that the email content is available even if the HTML version is not displayed correctly.
Email marketer from Mailchimp explains that plain-text versions of emails offer a fallback for recipients whose email clients can’t display HTML emails. They also improve accessibility for visually impaired users who rely on screen readers, which can more easily parse plain text.
What the experts say5Expert opinions
Expert from Email Geeks recommends having a plain text version at some level. Spam Assassin penalizes HTML-only emails for missing a text part, which could impact filtering tech built on top of SA.
Expert from Word to the Wise answers that they have seen arguments that having a text part is good for deliverability and can act as a fallback when rendering is broken. They also add the benefits of better accessibility, bandwidth conservation, and the ability to view the email regardless of settings or device.
Expert from Email Geeks shares that screenreaders handle HTML better than plain text (as long as it’s real HTML, not just images). They believe (almost) no consumer mail client is going to render the text/plain part. They don’t see much value in multipart/alternative at all, and definitely not in expending more effort than mechanically converting the HTML.
Expert from Spam Resource explains that it is helpful to include a content-type: text/plain part in emails, though not strictly required. The main reason being that some people use text-based email clients, such as pine or mutt. Those clients will show the text/plain part.
Expert from Email Geeks states that text and alt-text can be read by screen readers.
What the documentation says4Technical articles
Documentation from Litmus explains that using multipart MIME format is vital. This format includes both HTML and plain text versions of your email. If a recipient’s email client can’t render HTML, the plain text version ensures they still receive the message.
Documentation from Microsoft Support explains that plain text format only supports unformatted text (no bold, italics, or colored fonts). However, it results in smaller email sizes. Whereas Rich Text supports text formatting (bold, italics, colored fonts, etc.) and is the default format for Microsoft Outlook.
Documentation from MDN Web Docs explains for accessibility, plain text alternatives can ensure that the content remains accessible, regardless of whether the email client supports the advanced features of HTML. It is not a replacement but can augment it.
Documentation from RFC Editor shares that multipart/alternative indicates that each of the parts is an alternative version of the same information. The system should choose the 'best' type based on the recipient's environment.