What are the benefits and requirements of BIMI for email deliverability and branding?

Key findings

• Authentication reward: BIMI is widely considered a visual reward for properly implementing strong email authentication, especially a strict DMARC policy.
• Brand visibility: Its primary benefit is to increase brand visibility and recognition by displaying a verified logo directly in the inbox.
• Engagement potential: Displaying a recognizable logo can draw recipient attention and theoretically lead to increased engagement (e.g., higher open and click-through rates).
• No direct deliverability boost: BIMI itself does not directly improve email deliverability or prevent emails from landing in spam folders or on a blacklist (also known as a blocklist). Instead, it relies on the strong authentication provided by DMARC, SPF, and DKIM to signal legitimacy.
• Anti-phishing measure: By making it easier to identify legitimate senders, BIMI can help reduce the risk of phishing attacks and brand impersonation.

Key considerations

• DMARC enforcement: A strict DMARC policy (p=quarantine or p=reject) is a prerequisite for BIMI implementation. This is often the most challenging part of the process. For more details on setup, see how to set up DMARC for BIMI.
• Verified Mark Certificate (VMC): For major email providers like Gmail and Apple Mail, a VMC is required to display your logo. VMCs are issued by specific certificate authorities and come with an annual cost (e.g., around $1299/year).
• Trademarked logo: Your brand logo must be trademarked to obtain a VMC. The trademarking process itself can be lengthy and complex if not already done.
• Implementation process: The entire process, from DMARC enforcement to VMC acquisition and DNS record setup, can be extended and complex, as documented by sources like Stripo's experience.
• ROI justification: While beneficial for branding, the direct return on investment (ROI) for the cost of a VMC and implementation efforts should be evaluated against perceived gains in brand trust and engagement.

Key opinions

• Brand visibility is key: Marketers universally agree that getting their logo in front of customers is always beneficial for brand recognition.
• Engagement driver: The visible logo is expected to draw attention and increase engagement, leading to better open and click-through rates.
• Complementary to DMARC: Many perceive BIMI as the payoff or “carrot” for successfully implementing a robust DMARC policy.
• Security perception: While not a direct security measure, the verified logo can enhance user trust and make it harder for phishers to spoof a brand.
• Indirect deliverability: Some marketers believe that the improved brand trust and engagement fostered by BIMI can indirectly lead to better deliverability outcomes, although this is more a consequence of the underlying authentication rather than BIMI itself.

Key considerations

• Cost of VMC: The annual cost of a Verified Mark Certificate (VMC) is a significant investment that needs to be justified by the perceived branding benefits. For more on costs, see BIMI implementation costs.
• Trademark requirement: A key hurdle is the necessity of having a legally trademarked logo, a process that can be time-consuming if not already in place.
• DMARC prerequisite: Successfully achieving DMARC enforcement at a strict policy (quarantine or reject) is a prerequisite that requires significant effort and time.
• Internal buy-in: Securing internal buy-in for the investment in BIMI can be challenging, though some marketers note that the ability to leverage marketing budgets for DMARC projects can be an incentive for IT departments.
• Complex process: The overall implementation process, including SVG file creation and DNS record publication, is recognized as extended and involved.

Key opinions

• Authentication is foundational: Experts stress that proper email authentication (SPF, DKIM, DMARC) is what truly gives senders the “deliverability they deserve,” with BIMI being a subsequent branding layer.
• Indirect deliverability impact: While not directly influencing spam filtering, the enhanced trust and recognition from a visible logo can lead to better user engagement, which in turn can positively affect sender reputation and thus indirectly aid deliverability. This concept is often explored in discussions around BIMI's impact on engagement.
• Anti-spoofing mechanism: BIMI strengthens the anti-spoofing efforts by providing a clear visual cue for verified senders, making it harder for fraudulent emails to deceive recipients.
• Brand trust: The verified logo signifies a higher level of trust to the recipient, which is crucial in an era of increasing email fraud.
• Long-term value: Despite the initial investment, experts see BIMI as a valuable long-term asset for brand integrity and enhanced user experience.

Key considerations

• DMARC enforcement is non-negotiable: Achieving DMARC at an enforced policy (quarantine or reject) is a strict requirement and typically the most complex part of the journey to BIMI. Without it, BIMI cannot be implemented.
• VMC process complexity: Obtaining a Verified Mark Certificate is more than just a financial outlay; it involves a detailed validation process by accredited certificate authorities, as also discussed in BIMI provider support requirements.
• Trademark validation: The requirement for a registered trademark for the logo adds another layer of complexity and potential delay to the overall implementation timeline.
• Limited direct deliverability: While beneficial, it's crucial for organizations to understand that BIMI will not fix underlying deliverability issues such as poor sender reputation or landing on a blocklist. Its value is predominantly in branding and trust, not direct inbox placement.
• Mailbox provider support: BIMI display is dependent on mailbox provider support, meaning not all recipients will see the logo even with full implementation.

Key findings

• Authentication dependency: BIMI builds directly on the foundation of strong email authentication standards like SPF, DKIM, and especially DMARC, requiring a DMARC policy of p=quarantine or p=reject.
• Logo display mechanism: A BIMI record (a DNS TXT record) instructs receiving mail servers where to locate the official SVG file for the brand's logo.
• Verified Mark Certificate (VMC): For display in high-profile inboxes (like Gmail and Apple Mail), a VMC is required. This certificate cryptographically links the brand's trademarked logo to its authenticated email domain, providing enhanced assurance.
• Brand trust and anti-spoofing: Documentation consistently frames BIMI as a tool to increase recipient trust and help combat email fraud and impersonation by visually verifying legitimate senders.
• Technical specifications: Specific requirements exist for the SVG logo file, including its format (SVG Tiny 1.2), size, and secure hosting (HTTPS).

Key considerations

• Prerequisites: The explicit requirement for DMARC enforcement (p=quarantine or p=reject) means BIMI implementation cannot proceed without robust email authentication already in place. More on BIMI requirements and steps.
• Trademarked logo: A key component of VMC issuance is the legal trademark of the brand's logo. Without this, a VMC cannot be obtained.
• DNS configuration: The proper configuration of the BIMI DNS TXT record is critical for mailbox providers to locate and display the logo correctly.
• Supported clients: BIMI logo display is dependent on support from individual email clients and mailbox providers, which may vary. Information about which email clients support BIMI is available.
• Security vs. branding: Documentation clarifies that BIMI's primary impact is on branding and perceived security, rather than directly altering core deliverability metrics or serving as a direct spam filter bypass mechanism.