Steven Streight noted: >>Have you tested a graphic heavy version with a text only, or graphic lite, version? I don't do newsletters. Have I tested different designs with my users? Yes. Have I actively persued different UI alternatives with my user base instead of leaving that to chance? Of course. No biggie. I think we pretty much all do that to a greater or lessor degree. Some more formally. Some more informally. I think we're all in the choir on that one. >>But Geiko using pictures in a TV commercial is not the same as what user want in an email newsletter. Correct. It was a comment on the assertion about not being able to use photos to sell insurance ... and you'll note I specifically referred to their print ads instead of their TV or radio ads in order to speak to 'photo' and not 'audio' or 'video'. Yes Virginia the insurance industry (and just about everyone else too) uses photos in their advertising. [Ever seen a Prudential 'rock'? A Hartford 'hart'? I picked on Geico - but they are far from the only insurer using imagery in their ads.] >>Keep in mind: this is NOT an attack on visuality, artists, pictures, graphic design, etc. Bzzzt! I disagree. That appears to be exactly what this is Steven ... an assertion disparaging the value of images in advertising ... a pretty darn untenable assertion in my book - but I'm not an 'ad' type. >From what I've seen in this thread the stated purpose of the newsletter under discussion is 'marketing'. (There can be other purposes for newsletters. There could be one (without graphics) relating recent scientific findings for the past week in Endocrinology, for example.) The newsletter under discussion in this thread, however, seemed aimed at promoting sales. An area where liberal use of graphics and photos would be germane. Peace out, RonL.