Summary
Return Path (now Validity) Certification has historically maintained a notably low acceptance rate, often cited around 4%. This can lead to confusion and concern for senders aiming to achieve higher deliverability standards. The primary reasons for rejection and the low acceptance rate stem from a rigorous evaluation process that scrutinizes a sender's infrastructure, sending practices, and complaint rates. Essentially, the certification acts as a premium whitelist, demanding strict adherence to best practices, which many applicants may not meet on their first attempt or even at all.
Key findings
- Low acceptance rate: The publicised 4% acceptance rate reflects the demanding criteria for certification rather than an arbitrary rejection policy. It is often a conversion rate for their sales funnel, where many inquiries are from senders who don't qualify.
- Infrastructure requirements: Lack of dedicated IP addresses is a common reason for initial rejection, as certified senders are expected to have full control over their sending reputation.
- List hygiene and consent: Opt-out (rather than opt-in) mailing programs are a significant barrier to certification, highlighting the importance of explicit consent for recipient lists. Maintaining a clean list also prevents issues like spam trap hits, which heavily impact reputation.
- Reputation issues: Existing listings on relevant blocklists or blacklists and high complaint rates (even if other criteria are met) can lead to rejection or require a reputation improvement plan.
Key considerations
- Pre-assessment: Understanding that Return Path utilizes an automated assessment of domains and IPs to gauge eligibility before deeper engagement is crucial.
- Consulting pathway: For senders with good potential but out-of-line metrics, Return Path may suggest a consulting engagement to help bring sending practices up to the required standards, rather than outright rejecting them permanently.
- Perceived value: While certification offers benefits, the high bar set for acceptance underscores its exclusivity and the expectation of superior sending practices. Consider whether Return Path certification is genuinely worth the investment for your specific email program.
- ISP participation: It's important to note that while some major ISPs like Microsoft partner with Return Path, others (like Gmail) do not directly provide mailbox provider data back to Return Path, which impacts the scope of certification benefits. More information can be found on this article about Return Path and Gmail.
What email marketers say
Email marketers often express surprise and sometimes frustration regarding Return Path's low certification acceptance rate. Many initially view the 4% figure as indicative of an overly strict or unachievable standard. However, discussions among marketers frequently reveal a deeper understanding that the low rate reflects the rigorous criteria and the sheer volume of applicants who do not meet baseline requirements due to issues like shared IPs, poor list hygiene, or high complaint rates. The consensus leans towards appreciating the certification's value as a signal of high quality, albeit one that is difficult to attain.
Key opinions
- Initial surprise: Many marketers are surprised by the publicly stated 4% acceptance rate, initially perceiving it as extremely low or suggesting a high rejection rate for qualified senders.
- Shady sender volume: A common opinion is that a large number of applicants are 'shady senders' or those who fundamentally do not meet ethical or technical sending standards, contributing to the low overall acceptance rate.
- First-attempt reality: The low rate might primarily apply to initial attempts, with senders needing to address issues before a successful application.
- Sales funnel perspective: The 4% figure is often seen as a conversion rate for their sales process, where many initial inquiries are filtered out by an automated assessment process.
- Common rejection reasons: Frequent reasons for not being certified include using shared IP addresses, operating an opt-out email program, or having metrics (like high complaints or bounce rates) that are out of line with Return Path's requirements. These issues are common causes for general email deliverability problems.
Key considerations
- Understanding the screening: Marketers should be aware of the automated pre-screening process that filters out unsuitable applicants early.
- Investment in improvement: If metrics are problematic, Return Path may offer consulting to help senders meet the standards, indicating that rejection isn't always final if a commitment to improvement exists.
- Quality over quantity: The low acceptance rate reinforces the certification as a mark of high quality, suggesting that only the most compliant senders achieve it.
- Alternative strategies: While certification can be beneficial, marketers also need to focus on fundamental deliverability practices like maintaining a strong sender reputation and avoiding email blocklistings, regardless of certification status. Learn more about acceptance rates in a broader context.
Marketer from Email Geeks indicates initial surprise at the 4% acceptance rate. This figure seems exceptionally low when first encountered.
Marketer from Email Geeks suggests that many questionable senders probably attempt to get certified, leading to a high volume of automatic rejections which brings down the overall acceptance percentage.
What the experts say
Industry experts concur that Return Path Certification's low acceptance rate is a reflection of its stringent requirements designed to filter out non-compliant or questionable sending practices. They highlight that the program isn't merely about good intentions, but about demonstrable adherence to best practices in infrastructure, list management, and reputation. Experts often advise senders to ensure their fundamental deliverability hygiene is impeccable before applying, stressing that certification is a validation of existing high standards rather than a fix for underlying issues. They also point out the importance of dedicated resources for managing a certified program.
Key opinions
- Quality over quantity: Experts believe the low acceptance rate validates the program's rigor, ensuring only truly compliant senders receive the certification stamp.
- Fundamental issues: Many rejections stem from basic deliverability failures, such as poor list acquisition practices, outdated lists leading to invalid user bounces, or failure to manage email blocklist listings.
- Technical prerequisites: Having robust email authentication (SPF, DKIM, DMARC) properly configured and aligning with best practices is a non-negotiable prerequisite.
- Reputation is key: A clean sending reputation, including low complaint rates and minimal spam trap hits, is critical and continuously monitored.
Key considerations
- Preparation is vital: Senders should meticulously review their entire email program, ensuring compliance with all best practices before even considering an application. This includes having a clear understanding of how sender reputation works.
- Ongoing compliance: Certification is not a one-time pass. Certified senders are subject to continuous monitoring, and failure to maintain standards can lead to revocation.
- Cost-benefit analysis: While certification can offer benefits like preferential inbox placement at participating ISPs, experts advise weighing these against the significant investment of time and resources required to achieve and maintain certification. More on this can be found at Spam Resource.
- Focus on fundamentals: Before chasing certification, ensure your basic deliverability health is strong. This includes proper SPF, DKIM, and DMARC setup, maintaining clean lists, and sending engaging content.
Expert from Spam Resource explains that the certification program is designed to identify and reward the highest quality senders, hence the rigorous selection process and low acceptance rate.
Expert from Word to the Wise suggests that many applicants likely lack the necessary infrastructure, such as dedicated IP addresses, which is a foundational requirement for certification.
What the documentation says
Official documentation and technical guides related to email deliverability and certification programs often elaborate on the stringent criteria for such certifications. They highlight that successful application hinges on a combination of strong technical compliance (like proper authentication and dedicated infrastructure), robust sending practices (such as explicit consent and low complaint rates), and a consistently positive sender reputation. These documents typically emphasize that the certification process is a thorough audit designed to ensure only senders committed to the highest standards of email hygiene and legitimate engagement are accepted, which naturally leads to a high rejection rate for those who fall short.
Key findings
- Technical compliance: Documentation confirms that proper configuration of email authentication protocols (SPF, DKIM, DMARC) is a baseline requirement. Failures in these areas lead to immediate rejection. Ensure your DMARC verification passes.
- Sending infrastructure: The use of dedicated IP addresses, rather than shared ones, is consistently cited as crucial for maintaining the precise control over sending reputation required for certification.
- Engagement and complaint rates: Low complaint rates, high engagement, and minimal bounces are fundamental metrics that must be consistently within defined thresholds.
- Opt-in policies: Explicit, permission-based list acquisition (opt-in) is a cornerstone of certification. Opt-out programs are generally disqualifying.
Key considerations
- Holistic evaluation: Documentation emphasizes that the evaluation process is comprehensive, looking at all aspects of an email program, not just isolated metrics.
- Reputation management: Continuous monitoring of sender reputation, including proactive monitoring for blacklist listings, is essential for maintaining certified status.
- Industry standards alignment: The requirements for certification are often aligned with broader industry best practices for email deliverability, suggesting that adhering to these widely accepted standards is beneficial regardless of certification status. For a general understanding of the Return Path email header, see EmailLabs' explanation of Return Path.
Documentation on Email Deliverability Services confirms that dedicated IP addresses are a fundamental requirement for most advanced deliverability certifications, enabling full control over a sender's reputation.
An industry whitepaper on Email Best Practices states that explicit, permission-based opt-in is paramount, and programs relying on opt-out mechanisms rarely qualify for premium certifications.
