Is VMC mandatory for Gmail logo display, and what are the alternative methods?

Key findings

• BIMI and VMC: For logos displayed specifically via the BIMI standard in Gmail, a VMC is generally required. This certificate verifies the authenticity of your brand logo and its connection to a registered trademark, leading to a visible blue verified checkmark next to your sender name.
• Alternative methods: Historically, Gmail has allowed logo display through other means, such as Annotations (primarily for the promotional tab) and Google Profile logos (associated with your Google account). These methods could display a logo without the need for a VMC.
• Non-BIMI logos: If a logo appears in Gmail without a VMC, it is not being displayed as a BIMI-verified logo. It indicates the use of one of these alternative or older display mechanisms.
• Evolving requirements: While older methods might still function, Gmail's emphasis is shifting towards BIMI with VMC for trusted brand identification, as highlighted by recent updates on additional BIMI protections.

Key considerations

• Brand trust: A VMC-backed BIMI logo offers the highest level of brand authenticity and can enhance recipient trust, potentially improving engagement and email deliverability.
• Investment justification: Evaluate the cost of a VMC against the perceived benefits, considering the added verification and the evolving landscape of email client support for BIMI. More insights into VMC pricing and alternatives can inform this decision.
• Future-proofing: As mailbox providers tighten security measures, VMC-enabled BIMI is likely to become the standard for verified logo display, making it a strategic investment for long-term brand visibility.
• Trademark requirements: A VMC typically requires your logo to be a registered trademark, which can be a barrier for some businesses. Alternative certificates, like Common Mark Certificates (CMCs), may offer a path for non-trademarked logos, though their support for Gmail BIMI display varies.

Key opinions

• Cost justification: Many marketers find it challenging to justify the investment in a VMC when it appears that a similar visual outcome, such as logo display in Gmail, can be achieved through other, less costly methods.
• Alternative effectiveness: Some marketers successfully display their logos in Gmail using methods like Annotations or Google Profile logos, suggesting that a VMC is not the sole path to brand visibility.
• Distinguishing display methods: A common challenge is identifying whether a logo displayed in Gmail originates from BIMI, Google Profile, or Annotations, making it difficult to assess the true impact of VMC adoption.
• Focus on visibility: The primary goal for many is simply to get their logo to show up, regardless of the underlying technical mechanism, as long as it enhances brand recognition.

Key considerations

• ROI of VMC: Marketers should thoroughly evaluate the return on investment for a VMC, considering not just logo display, but also potential improvements in sender reputation and message authenticity that a verified mark provides.
• Strategic implementation: Rather than viewing BIMI and VMC as mere logo display tools, marketers should see them as part of a broader email authentication strategy. This includes strong DMARC policies, which are a prerequisite for BIMI, and which also significantly boost deliverability.
• Future-proofing brand display: While current alternatives may work, relying on methods that are not officially endorsed for long-term brand verification by major mailbox providers carries inherent risks. Investing in VMC may future-proof brand visibility as standards evolve.
• Brand consistency: Ensure that whichever method is chosen, the logo displayed is consistent with the brand's identity and effectively represents the company to recipients. This involves careful consideration of the technical requirements for SVG files, particularly for BIMI.

Key opinions

• BIMI distinction: Experts confirm that if a logo is visible in Gmail without a VMC, it is not being displayed as a BIMI-authenticated logo, clarifying that VMC is integral to BIMI implementation.
• Alternative longevity: There's an acknowledgement that methods like Gmail Annotations and Google Profile logos continue to provide 100% logo coverage, and the Gmail team has indicated their continued support for these, at least for the foreseeable future.
• Future VMC requirement: Experts have heard directly from the Gmail team that as BIMI matures, a VMC might eventually become a requirement even for logos displayed via Google Profiles.
• Identification challenge: It can be difficult for recipients to discern whether a logo is displayed due to BIMI, Google Profile, or Annotations, requiring senders to verify their own configurations, for example by checking BIMI records and SVG files.

Key considerations

• DMARC enforcement: A foundational requirement for BIMI is a strong DMARC policy (p=quarantine or p=reject). Experts consistently emphasize the importance of implementing DMARC for email security and brand authentication, regardless of VMC status.
• Verifying BIMI setup: To confirm a proper BIMI implementation, experts recommend checking if a valid BIMI record is published for the domain, which can often be done through tools available on the BIMI Group website.
• Priority of display: While multiple methods can display a logo, the priority or order in which Gmail chooses to display them (e.g., BIMI vs. Google Profile vs. Annotations) is not always explicitly clear, especially in mixed scenarios like the promotional tab.
• Adapting to changes: Given the dynamic nature of email client features, experts advise senders to stay informed about updates from Gmail and the BIMI Working Group to ensure their logo display remains effective and compliant.

Key findings

• Gmail's VMC requirement: Google's documentation clearly states that for a brand logo to be displayed in Gmail with a verified checkmark (via BIMI), a Verified Mark Certificate is required. This applies to registered trademarks.
• BIMI's framework: The BIMI specification itself, supported by the BIMI Group, relies on Mark Verifying Authorities (MVAs), such as Certification Authorities, to verify logo ownership and issue VMCs as proof of verification.
• Annotations vs. BIMI: Documentation distinguishes between BIMI and Gmail Annotations. While Annotations can display logos in the promotional tab, they are separate from the BIMI standard and do not confer the same level of verified identity.
• Troubleshooting: Google provides specific troubleshooting steps for BIMI issues, often pointing to the necessity of a VMC and proper DMARC alignment as common culprits for logo non-display or messages going to spam. For help, you can refer to their guidelines.

Key considerations

• Authentication prerequisites: All documentation emphasizes that strong email authentication, particularly DMARC with an enforcement policy, is a fundamental requirement before attempting BIMI with a VMC.
• Trademark registration: The requirement for a registered trademark (or equivalent validated mark) is consistently stated for VMC issuance, which is a significant barrier for brands without one.
• SVG file format: Documentation specifies strict requirements for the SVG image file used for BIMI logos, including security features and specific formatting to ensure proper rendering and security.
• Supported providers: It's important to consult documentation to understand which email clients and mailbox providers currently support BIMI, with or without a VMC. For a deeper dive, consider checking supported email clients.