Honestly! This thread goes back to the beginning of the 3rd Gen Editor - CLEARLY there is a need for the return of the Anchor Links. Are we simply to small of a demographic to be worth Constant Contacts time? We invested our time and faith in you, and you've taken away a useful tool. I don't want to switch providers, but this is RIDICULOUS!
I can completely understand your want for this feature, and apologize it is not available in our Third Generation Editor. Because many desktop email clients and mobile email apps do not support these types of links we are still collecting feedback on re-implementing them. I have submitted this request in your account to the appropriate teams. I can see you have also posted your feedback on this in our Feedback board. All feedback in this board is read by Constant Contact employees, so thank you for sharing it there as well!
Add me to the long list of users who would like for anchor links to return. I started to create a new and fresh template yesterday for my newsletter, and have found that the new editor doesn't support the anchor links. I suppose I will just go back to using the old template. I've been a Constant Contact user for ten or more years, and this is the first time I have been truly disappointed in the product.
I agree BettyB8 - I’m completely annoyed that I’m going to end up having to switch to since they have an easy option for anchor links! But it means transferring all my graphics and forms and starting from scratch and that sucks!
Clearly CC doesn’t care, now you can expect the standard reply email from CC: “we understand and appreciate your wish for anchor links - however we believe that since many mobile users wouldn’t be able to use them, that you wanting them back doesn’t actually matter. We’re sure it would take very little time and effort on our part to bring them back, but have decided it’s not worth it to only benefit a small percentage of our clients. Thanks for your comment! “
The decision to eliminate traditional anchors is not a solution, and not forward thinking, it is simply a change in philosophy that is premature. Anchors are not obsolete, but rather, an important tool for an important information system within many organizations.
It's likely that there are thousands of your customers who still use Constant Contact as an incredible newsletter creation system within their organizations. For many, the idea of a newsletter, especially internally, is to actually NOT have to go to the website or any external sources - everything is contained within the newsletter. You've also eliminated any hope of getting around this issue, by taking away the ability to work within the code itself.
I think I'm not alone in advising to bring back these abilities in any new versions.
I'm an editor/designer who's been off Constant Contact for a few years now, after having grown weary of its design limitations, but recently have been working on a new, simple email prototype for a client (who owns this account). As I was preparing for a meeting with him tomorrow to go over things, since he's not as tech savvy, I looked up "anchor links" to show him that, only to find this sad thread. It comes on the heels of discovering that one can no longer edit html code in the "new" editor. As someone who taught a proprietary software to people and grew accustomed to hearing complaints about what they could no longer do with the new software, I know both sides here. But I favor the user: This is pathetic. What CC's clients are hearing in its canned responses above is: "We either don't have the know-how to make this work across email platforms" or "We just don't care." What my client will hear tomorrow: "You may want to consider ."
Add me to the long list of users who would like for anchor links to return.
Are you serious @ConstantContact? You're not going to put the function back? Your "read more" function is not what we need.
Constant Contact has been really practical but so expensive. That's only because users are so used to your -excellent- interface that I -admin- haven't switched yet to a cheaper competitor. But here, we now have a problem that also upsets users.