AMP for email, or Accelerated Mobile Pages for email, was introduced to bring dynamic and interactive experiences directly into the inbox. The idea was compelling: allow users to browse catalogs, fill out forms, or respond to surveys without ever leaving their email client. This promised a significant leap forward from static HTML emails, aiming to boost engagement and streamline user workflows.
However, like any new technology in the complex email ecosystem, AMP for email has not been without its challenges. While it offers exciting possibilities, its implementation and broader acceptance face several hurdles that warrant careful consideration from senders and marketers alike.
Many of these concerns revolve around the technical complexities, limited support across email clients, potential security implications, and the overall impact on email deliverability. Understanding these issues is crucial for anyone considering incorporating AMP into their email strategy.
Compatibility and adoption challenges
One of the most significant concerns surrounding AMP for email is its fragmented support across various email clients. While Gmail and Yahoo Mail have shown commitment, other major players like Outlook have pulled back their support, and Apple Mail (which accounts for a large segment of the market) does not support it at all. This lack of universal adoption means senders cannot rely solely on AMP, necessitating the creation of robust HTML and plain-text fallbacks for every campaign. This dual or triple rendering requirement adds considerable complexity to email development workflows.
The development effort for AMP emails is significantly higher than for traditional HTML emails. Beyond the standard HTML and CSS, AMP requires a specific set of components and validation rules, often demanding specialized skills that many email marketing teams or platforms may not possess. This can lead to increased development time and costs, potentially outweighing the perceived benefits of interactivity.
Furthermore, the inconsistent experience across clients can be jarring for recipients. An interactive AMP email on Gmail might revert to a static HTML version on Outlook, potentially confusing users or leading to a less engaging experience than anticipated. This inconsistency can dilute the brand message and even lead to negative perceptions if not managed carefully.
Traditional HTML email
Development: Easier to build with standard HTML/CSS, widely supported tools.
Interactivity: Limited to clicks, no real-time updates within the email.
Compatibility: Broadly compatible across most email clients.
AMP for email
Development: Requires specialized AMP HTML, more complex and time-consuming.
Interactivity: Enables dynamic content, real-time updates, forms, and quizzes.
Interactive content inherently introduces new security vectors that static emails typically avoid. While AMP for email has built-in security mechanisms, the dynamic nature can still raise concerns. One primary worry is the potential for phishing attacks. Malicious actors could theoretically craft interactive AMP emails that mimic legitimate services, luring users into disclosing sensitive information through interactive forms within the email itself.
Another point of contention is the extent of control major email providers, particularly Google, exert over the email experience. Since AMP is a Google-led initiative, some perceive its broader adoption as increasing Google's influence over email content and its rendering, potentially at the expense of an open standard. The very nature of AMP, designed to limit arbitrary code, means email clients enforce strict validation. This is generally a good thing for security, but it does mean a specific framework dictates what you can and cannot do.
Furthermore, the concept of a mutable email, where content can change after being sent, contradicts the traditional understanding of email as a static, immutable record. This raises questions about archiving, legal compliance, and the user's expectation of what an email represents. Ensuring all external resources fetched by an AMP email use HTTPS is critical to mitigate security risks, as unencrypted connections can expose user data or allow content manipulation.
AMP and security considerations
While AMP for email is designed with security in mind, the interactive elements introduce new challenges. It's crucial for senders to understand these implications and adhere to best practices to protect their recipients.
Phishing risk: The ability to embed dynamic forms could be exploited by phishers. Validate origin and content diligently.
Data handling: Ensure any data collected through AMP forms is handled securely and in compliance with privacy regulations.
Content validation: Always use valid AMP HTML to prevent issues that could be exploited.
Deliverability and operational complexities
Even with AMP for email's security features, there are concerns regarding its impact on email deliverability and potential spam placement. Some providers require senders to be whitelisted before their AMP emails will render as intended. Without this whitelist approval, the AMP version might not display, or worse, the email could be flagged as suspicious and sent to the spam or junk folder. This adds an extra layer of authentication and approval that isn't typically required for standard HTML emails.
The complexity of AMP code itself can sometimes be a red flag for spam filters, even for mailboxes that don't support AMP rendering. While not a direct cause, if misconfigured or if the email's fallback HTML is poorly constructed, it could inadvertently contribute to an email being considered spam. This means that even if a mailbox doesn't render AMP, the presence of AMP code could still affect its inbox placement, highlighting the delicate balance required for email deliverability. If an AMP email causes an unusual increase in spam complaints, your IP or domain might even find its way onto a blocklist or blacklist.
The focus on AMP might also distract from fundamental deliverability best practices. Things like proper email authentication, sender reputation management, and maintaining clean mailing lists remain paramount. Without these foundations, even the most interactive AMP email may struggle to reach the inbox. Recent changes by major providers like Google and Yahoo in 2024 underscore the importance of these core practices over advanced features like AMP.
Always include robust HTML and plain-text fallbacks for all recipients.
Test AMP emails extensively across various email clients to ensure consistent rendering.
Prioritize fundamental deliverability practices like authentication and list hygiene.
Monitor AMP email performance separately to assess its true ROI and impact.
Common pitfalls
Ignoring the development overhead and specialized skills required for AMP.
Assuming all recipients will see the interactive AMP version.
Neglecting fallback content, leading to broken experiences for non-AMP users.
Not getting whitelisted by supporting mailbox providers, resulting in deliverability issues.
Expert tips
If interactive elements are crucial, consider alternative approaches that are more broadly supported.
Focus on incremental improvements to your existing email strategy before diving into AMP.
Use A/B testing to truly understand if AMP provides a significant uplift for your audience.
Keep an eye on industry trends for AMP support, as it can change rapidly.
Expert view
Expert from Email Geeks says they have general displeasure for AMP, both web and email, due to concerns about Google having too much control over content.
2019-09-06 - Email Geeks
Marketer view
Marketer from Email Geeks says they are skeptical that the return on investment justifies the significant effort required for AMP development at this stage.
2019-09-06 - Email Geeks
Considering AMP for your email strategy
While AMP for email promises a more interactive and dynamic inbox experience, the reality presents a mixed bag of opportunities and challenges. The primary concerns revolve around its limited email client support, the added complexity and cost of development, and the potential security and deliverability implications.
For many senders, the effort required to implement AMP, coupled with the need for robust fallbacks for non-supporting clients, may not justify the return on investment. The email landscape is constantly evolving, and a focus on core deliverability practices, a strong sender reputation, and engaging, well-designed HTML emails often yields more consistent and reliable results.
Ultimately, the decision to use AMP for email should be weighed carefully against your specific audience, technical capabilities, and marketing goals. For some niche applications and audiences where Gmail usage is dominant, AMP might offer unique advantages. For most, however, the concerns often outweigh the benefits, suggesting a cautious approach is best.
Outlook, potentially confusing users or leading to a less engaging experience than anticipated. This inconsistency can dilute the brand message and even lead to negative perceptions if not managed carefully.
