Stop Sending MMS: What the Data Actually Shows
Stop Sending MMS: What the Data Actually Shows
This article explains why plain text SMS consistently outperforms MMS — even for brands where visual creative is central to everything they do. Goodr, one of the most recognizable DTC brands of the last decade, built their entire identity around bold, colorful sunglasses. Every instinct said MMS should win. After repeated testing, plain text kept winning instead. ECD has seen the same result across client accounts.
The post covers why the SMS channel works differently than every other marketing touchpoint, what makes plain text outperform on it, how to evaluate MMS against the metrics that actually matter, and the specific situations where an image is still worth testing. The main takeaway is that MMS should never be the default without performance proof behind it — and on a large list, the format decision is also a margin decision, whether the brand treats it that way or not.
- What feels polished in a creative review can feel promotional in a text thread SMS is the same channel where customers hear from friends, family, and their delivery driver. The moment a message feels like an ad, the intimacy that makes the channel valuable starts to disappear. Plain text fits natively. MMS signals a campaign blast.
- MMS costs more per send — and most brands never run the math The exact difference varies by platform and carrier, but on a list of tens or hundreds of thousands of subscribers it compounds quickly. If MMS does not improve revenue per recipient, click rate, or conversion rate enough to offset the higher send cost, every MMS campaign is quietly more expensive than it needed to be.
- SMS is not the channel that tells the story — it is the channel that tells the customer the moment has arrived The full product story, the imagery, the lifestyle context, the reviews — that belongs in email. SMS earns its place when the message is genuinely time-sensitive and the ask is one clear action.
If you’re no stranger to ECD, you know how much we talk about ourselves on this blog. And with good reason (not to toot our own horns, but we are Klaviyo Master Elite Partners after all).
But today we’re handing the mic to someone else.
Goodr is one of the most recognizable DTC brands of the last decade. Colorful, loud, absurdly fun sunglasses that built a cult following in the running community and turned a $25 price point into genuine brand love. If you do not know them, you should. If you do, you know that everything about their brand is visual. The product, the campaigns, the energy, all of it.
So when Jared Grorock, who leads Lifecycle and Retention Marketing at Goodr, sat down with our founder Zak on Episode 1 of the DTC Revenue Rocket Podcast, what he shared about SMS stopped us in our tracks.
A brand this visual, with products this colorful, kept testing MMS. And plain text kept winning.
Why Visual Brands Default to MMS
On paper, it definitely makes sense. The product is visual. The brand is visual. The launch assets are visual… so wouldn’t we set up our channels in the same way?
I mean, when the creative team spent weeks on the imagery, the obvious choice is to let the product do what it does best: be seen. And now there is an opportunity to put that image directly in front of the customer at the most personal touchpoint in the marketing stack. Why would you send a plain text when you have something worth showing?
But unfortunately, although it might sound like a great idea to a marketing team, it might not match your customers’ behavior.
What Goodr Found When They Put MMS vs SMS to the Test
Goodr was the perfect example of a visual-focused brand where MMS should win. The sunglasses are bright, bold, and fun. Product drops are a core part of how they build excitement. Obviously, images would perform better. But after test after test, it was the opposite.
Jared put it best on the podcast: “every time we do it, feels kind of like a quote-unquote miss, but it’s not.” The data kept pointing in the same direction. Their customers, the ones who love the brand, who wear the sunglasses at run clubs and marathons and post about them, those customers consistently resonated more with a simple, direct text than with an image.
ECD has tested MMS across client accounts repeatedly, and the result has been consistent. The added cost does not reliably translate into stronger revenue. The plain text version, shorter, more direct, more personal, tends to win.
Now, this is not to say we should all abandon MMS. Goodr hasn’t entirely. Jared mentioned they still retest it occasionally, roughly once a quarter, or when a specific moment feels like it genuinely calls for an image. That is the right approach. Audience behavior can shift. But so far, the data keeps sending them back to plain text.
Why Plain Text Outperforms on SMS
SMS is not email. It is not a landing page. It is not a paid ad. It is the same channel where people get texts from their friends, their family, their doctor, their delivery driver. The bar for what feels native is completely different.
When an MMS arrives, the customer is not sitting down to browse. They are being interrupted. And what feels polished and intentional in a creative review can feel promotional and heavy in a text thread. It feels like they got an unsolicited ad (although they did sign up for it), but it sucks if they feel that way.
That distinction matters more than most brands realize, because the moment a customer clocks something as promotional, the intimacy that makes SMS valuable starts to disappear.
There are a few specific reasons plain text tends to win on this channel:
It loads instantly. MMS requires the customer to download the image before they see the message. On a slow connection or an older device, that creates friction at exactly the moment when speed is the channel’s biggest advantage.
It forces copy clarity. When there is no image to lean on, the words have to do the work. That constraint is actually a feature. The best plain text SMS campaigns say one thing clearly and make it easy to act. MMS can create a crutch where the image carries the creative weight and the copy gets lazy.
It feels personal. A short direct text feels like someone sent it specifically for you. An image with a call to action feels like a campaign blast. Even when the send list is identical, the format changes how the message is received.
It fits the channel natively. People read texts fast and decide fast. Plain text respects that. MMS asks the customer to slow down, load something, and engage with creative at a moment when they are probably doing three other things.
MMS Is More Expensive….
The exact cost difference varies by platform and carrier, but the pattern is consistent across the industry: MMS costs more than SMS sends.
On a small list, that difference might feel negligible. On a list of tens or hundreds of thousands of subscribers, it compounds quickly. Every campaign decision about format is also a margin decision, whether the brand treats it that way or not.
Yes, MMS looks better. But does it drive enough incremental revenue to justify the added cost per send?
Most brands never ask that question. They approve the format in the creative review and move on. But if MMS does not improve revenue per recipient, click rate, or conversion rate enough to offset the higher send cost, every MMS campaign is quietly more expensive than it needed to be.
The metrics worth tracking before defaulting to MMS:
Revenue per recipient. Does MMS generate more revenue per subscriber reached than plain text does for the same offer?
Click rate. Does the image drive more clicks, or does it create friction that plain text avoids?
Conversion rate. Do those clicks convert at the same rate, or does something break between the message and the purchase?
Unsubscribe rate. Does MMS cause more opt-outs? A higher unsubscribe rate is a cost that does not show up in the send budget but absolutely shows up in list health over time.
Cost per send. What is the actual per-message cost difference between SMS and MMS on the current platform?
Profit after message cost. After accounting for the higher send cost, does MMS actually return more than plain text?
If MMS cannot win on those metrics, it is not a creative decision. It is an expensive habit.
When MMS Is Still Worth Testing?
The argument here is not that MMS never works. It could, and in some cases, it does. It’s that MMS should never be the default without performance proof behind it.
There are specific moments where an image can beat text message.
A few situations where MMS is worth a serious test:
When the image carries information. A visual product comparison, a size chart, a before and after, a bundle that needs to be seen to be understood. If the image is doing explanatory work that copy would take three sentences to do less effectively, it might belong in the message.
When the visual is the reveal. A limited edition color drop where the color is the entire point. A new design that customers have been waiting for. A collaboration where seeing the product is the hook. In these cases the image is not decoration. It is the news.
When past test data supports it. If a specific segment has historically responded better to MMS, that is a reason to keep testing it with that audience. Audience behavior is not universal and it is not permanent. Goodr still retests quarterly for exactly this reason.
When the creative genuinely creates desire. A lifestyle image that puts the product in a moment the customer wants to be in. Not a product shot on a white background, but something that does emotional work plain text cannot.
Regardless of what you’re testing, it al ties back to a singular question: does the image have a specific job? If the answer is yes and the data backs it up, MMS earns its place. If the answer is “it looks better,” that is an internal preference, not a customer insight.
SMS Never Tells The Whole Story
And it was never supposed to.
SMS is a channel built for one thing at a time. One message. One reason. One clear action. That constraint is not a limitation. It is the point. The directness is what makes it work.
he full product story, the imagery, the lifestyle context, the reviews, the collection details, the reasons someone should care about a new launch- none of that belongs in a text.
Email has the room to show the full collection, tell the product story, feature the photography, include the social proof, and give the customer everything they need to feel confident about a decision. Email is where visual creative earns its place. It has the format, the space, and the customer expectation to support it.
SMS picks up where email leaves off. The restock that just went live. The flash window that is actually closing. The drop that is available right now. The shipping cutoff that is real. SMS is not the channel that tells the story. It is the channel that tells the customer the moment has arrived.
When brands try to make SMS tell the whole story, the channel loses the one thing that makes it valuable. The feeling that this message was sent specifically for right now.
How ECD Builds The Right SMS Strategy
Goodr did not stop sending MMS because someone decided plain text was better. They tested it, watched the data, and let the results make the decision. They still retest it quarterly because audience behavior can change. That is the right approach.
We have helped brands drive 49 percent of total revenue through email and SMS combined. We have helped brands grow SMS subscription rates to 44 percent of active profiles once the list was built around real engagement rather than broad sends.
The answer for your brand might be plain text almost every time. It might be MMS for specific segments or specific moments. The only way to know is to test it the right way and track what actually moves revenue.
Before you send out anothe text, find out whether your SMS strategy is driving efficient revenue or making every send more expensive than it needs to be.
Get Your Free Revenue ForecastFrequently Asked Questions
Why does plain text SMS outperform MMS even for visual brands?
SMS is the same channel where customers receive texts from friends, family, doctors, and delivery drivers. The bar for what feels native is completely different from email or paid media. When an MMS arrives, it can feel promotional and heavy in a text thread even when the creative looks polished in a review — and the moment a customer clocks something as an ad, the intimacy that makes SMS valuable starts to disappear. Plain text loads instantly, forces copy clarity, feels personal, and fits the channel natively. MMS requires the customer to download an image before seeing the message, which creates friction at exactly the moment when speed is the channel’s biggest advantage.
What did Goodr’s testing reveal about MMS versus SMS performance?
Goodr is one of the most visual DTC brands in the running space — bold, colorful sunglasses with a brand built entirely around how the product looks. Every instinct pointed toward MMS performing better. After repeated testing, plain text consistently won. Jared Grorock, who leads Lifecycle and Retention Marketing at Goodr, described the results on the DTC Revenue Rocket Podcast as feeling like a miss but the data kept pointing the same direction. Goodr still retests MMS roughly once a quarter when a specific moment genuinely calls for an image, but so far the data keeps sending them back to plain text. ECD has seen the same pattern across client accounts.
What metrics should brands track before defaulting to MMS?
Six numbers are worth checking before the format decision gets made. Revenue per recipient: does MMS generate more revenue per subscriber reached than plain text for the same offer? Click rate: does the image drive more clicks or create friction plain text avoids? Conversion rate: do those clicks convert at the same rate, or does something break between the message and the purchase? Unsubscribe rate: does MMS cause more opt-outs, since a higher unsubscribe rate is a cost that doesn’t show up in the send budget but absolutely shows up in list health over time? Cost per send: what is the actual per-message cost difference on the current platform? And profit after message cost: after accounting for the higher send cost, does MMS actually return more than plain text? If MMS cannot win on those metrics, it is not a creative decision — it is an expensive habit.
When is MMS still worth testing?
There are four situations where an image can earn its place in an SMS. When the image carries information that copy would take several sentences to do less effectively — a size chart, a before and after, a bundle that needs to be seen to be understood. When the visual is the reveal itself — a limited edition color drop where the color is the entire point, or a new design that customers have been waiting for. When past test data shows a specific segment has historically responded better to MMS. And when the creative genuinely creates desire by putting the product in a moment the customer wants to be in, not a product shot on a white background but something that does emotional work plain text cannot. The question in every case is whether the image has a specific job. If the answer is yes and the data backs it up, MMS earns its place. If the answer is that it looks better, that is an internal preference, not a customer insight.
How do SMS and email work together rather than overlap?
They have different jobs in the same customer journey. Email has the room to show a full collection, tell the product story, feature photography, include social proof, and give the customer everything they need to feel confident about a decision. Email is where visual creative earns its place — it has the format, the space, and the customer expectation to support it. SMS picks up where email leaves off: the restock that just went live, the flash window that is actually closing, the shipping cutoff that is real. SMS is not the channel that tells the story. It is the channel that tells the customer the moment has arrived. When brands try to make SMS tell the whole story, the channel loses the one thing that makes it valuable — the feeling that the message was sent specifically for right now.
Written by: Nathan Pitchan
Full-time daydreamer and professional persuader, Nathan is a fearless word alchemist crafting copy that connects, converts, and feels undeniably magnetic. E-commerce. Food & beverage. Horticulture. Destination tourism. And beyond. In a world overrun by AI-generated fluff, his secret sauce is unmistakable: engaging, conversational, and deeply human storytelling. Why? Robot copy gets read. Human copy gets remembered.