How can I display my logo in Gmail and Microsoft, and what are the potential security risks?

Key findings

• Multiple methods: Logos can appear in Gmail and Microsoft through various means, including BIMI, JSON-LD annotations, and even setting up profiles with the sending domain, independent of BIMI.
• BIMI's role: BIMI is intended to be a robust trust signal, requiring strong email authentication like DMARC. However, its full implementation and universal recognition, especially the requirement for Verified Marks Certificates (VMCs), are still evolving.
• Authentication importance: Regardless of the logo display method, strong email authentication (SPF, DKIM, and DMARC) is foundational for ensuring email deliverability and preventing spoofing, even for domains not using BIMI.
• Spoofing potential: The existence of multiple logo display methods, particularly those less tied to strict authentication, creates opportunities for malicious actors to create highly convincing lookalike domains that appear legitimate to recipients.
• Microsoft's human review: Unlike some other methods, displaying a logo in Microsoft generally requires human approval, adding a layer of protection against fraudulent logo use.

Key considerations

• Prioritize DMARC: Implementing a strong DMARC policy is crucial, not just for BIMI, but for overall email security and preventing unauthorized use of your domain. Learn more about DMARC, SPF, and DKIM.
• Beware of 'fake trust': While logo display enhances brand visibility, be aware that not all logo appearances convey true sender authenticity. Rely on robust authentication, not just visual cues.
• Monitor domain reputation: A good sender reputation is essential for your emails to be delivered and for any associated brand indicators to be displayed effectively. Poor reputation can lead to emails being blocked or marked as spam.
• Stay updated on standards: The landscape of email authentication and brand display is constantly evolving. Keep informed about updates to BIMI requirements, Google's display guidelines, and Microsoft's policies to ensure continuous compliance and effective brand presentation. Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft frequently update their bulk email restrictions and guidelines.

Key opinions

• Confusion reigns: Many marketers find it confusing how different logo display methods interact and which ones are truly reliable indicators of sender authenticity. This includes how BIMI, JSON-LD annotations, and Google Promotion Tab logos function alongside each other.
• BIMI is not the only path: It is widely observed that logos can be displayed in Gmail and Microsoft without full BIMI implementation, adding to the complexity of establishing clear trust signals.
• Risk of imitation: There's a significant concern that even with SPF, DKIM, and DMARC in place, it could be possible to set up a lookalike domain with a logo, creating a highly convincing phishing scenario.
• Hope for certification: Many marketers anticipate that major mailbox providers will eventually require certified BIMI logos (via VMCs) to ensure the authenticity of displayed brand images.
• Wild west environment: The current state of email logo display is often described as unregulated, with various unofficial methods coexisting with standardized approaches.

Key considerations

• Strategic logo display: Choose logo display methods that align with your overall email security strategy and the level of trust you want to convey. For Microsoft, manual verification offers an additional layer of security.
• Address potential spoofing: Even as you strive for logo display, ensure your core email security protocols (like DMARC) are robust to counter potential brand impersonation attempts using lookalike domains. This is part of a broader strategy to prevent phishing warnings in Gmail.
• Consistent branding: While challenging, aim for consistent logo display across major email clients to reinforce brand identity and prevent user confusion.
• Email signature security: Consider the security of your overall email signature, including logos, to protect against phishing and unauthorized use.

Key opinions

• BIMI pilot status: Gmail's BIMI implementation is primarily within a pilot program, meaning not all senders can display logos via BIMI unless they are part of it. Other methods are often in play.
• Beyond BIMI: Email experts acknowledge that alternative approaches, such as JSON-LD annotations or setting up sender profiles, can also lead to logo display, but these typically require specific engagement and authentication with Gmail directly.
• No inherent trust: It's critical to understand that many logo display methods, especially the 'hacks,' do not inherently convey a genuine trust signal. True trust comes from robust email authentication like DMARC.
• Reputation is vital: For any logo to be displayed, particularly on domains that might appear similar to legitimate brands, a solid sender reputation is a prerequisite for acceptance by mailbox providers.
• Evolving standards: The landscape of email brand indicators is dynamic, with expectations that certified logos will become a more standard requirement in the future for stronger sender identity verification.

Key considerations

• Beyond visual cues: While logos are visually appealing, focus on foundational email authentication (SPF, DKIM, DMARC) as the true indicators of sender legitimacy. This helps avoid issues like Gmail's 'This message seems dangerous' alerts.
• DMARC for trust: BIMI's reliance on DMARC makes it the strongest current method for verified logo display. Ensure your DMARC policy is set to quarantine or reject to fully leverage its benefits.
• Comprehensive security approach: Beyond logo display, a comprehensive email security strategy is necessary to combat sophisticated threats like phishing. This includes robust email threat defense.
• Monitor and adapt: Continuously monitor your email deliverability and how your brand's identity is presented across different clients, adapting to new requirements and security best practices.

Key findings

• DMARC enforcement for BIMI: BIMI strictly requires a DMARC policy of 'quarantine' or 'reject' for logos to be displayed, ensuring strong authentication alignment.
• SVG file requirements: BIMI logos must adhere to specific SVG file format requirements, including secure HTTPS hosting and specific SVG attributes. More details on BIMI SVG file requirements.
• Verified Marks Certificates (VMCs): VMCs are becoming increasingly important for BIMI, providing cryptographic proof that the logo legitimately belongs to the sending organization, adding a layer of security against brand impersonation.
• Sender guidelines: Major email providers like Google and Microsoft issue explicit guidelines for display names and sender identity, which impact how logos and brand elements are treated. This ensures that the email display name and associated logo are clear and truthful.
• Layered security: Email clients implement multiple layers of security to detect and prevent phishing and spam, which means that even with a logo, a poor sending reputation or authentication failures can lead to emails being blocked or flagged.

Key considerations

• Adhere to BIMI specifications: If aiming for BIMI logo display, strictly follow the technical specifications for your DMARC record and SVG image to ensure compatibility across supporting email clients.
• Consider VMCs: As VMCs become more widespread, investing in one will be crucial for achieving the highest level of trust and logo display across supporting platforms. Learn more about BIMI accredited certificate providers.
• Understand provider policies: Familiarize yourself with the specific display and security policies of major mailbox providers like Google and Microsoft to ensure your emails and logos are presented as intended. For instance, AdminDroid provides a guide on how to monitor spam detection reports in M365.
• Integrate authentication: Treat logo display as an extension of your email authentication efforts, ensuring that SPF, DKIM, and DMARC are robustly implemented and monitored to prevent issues like DMARC verification failures.