BIMI (Brand Indicators for Message Identification) is an email standard that allows organizations to display their trademarked brand logo next to their sender information in a recipient's inbox. Its purpose is to enhance brand recognition, improve trust, and increase security by ensuring emails are authenticated.

Why is DMARC important for BIMI?

DMARC (Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance) is crucial for BIMI because BIMI requires a domain to have a DMARC policy set to p=quarantine or p=reject . This strong DMARC policy ensures that only legitimate, authenticated emails from your domain can display the BIMI logo, preventing unauthorized use and enhancing anti-phishing efforts.

Do I need a VMC for BIMI?

Whether you need a VMC depends on the email client. For example, Gmail generally requires a Verified Mark Certificate (VMC) or Common Mark Certificate (CMC) to display your logo. Other clients, like Yahoo Mail , may display your logo without a VMC if all other BIMI requirements are met. It is best to check provider-specific requirements .

Which email clients support BIMI?

BIMI is currently supported by major email clients such as Google (Gmail) , Yahoo Mail , and Mail.ru . However, support can vary and is continuously evolving. It's important to note that even within supporting clients, certain conditions, like the VMC requirement, may apply for your logo to display correctly.

How does BIMI help with email security?

BIMI significantly enhances email security by requiring robust email authentication, specifically a DMARC policy at enforcement (quarantine or reject). This ensures that only emails properly authenticated by SPF and DKIM can display the brand's logo. This verifiable logo helps recipients easily identify legitimate senders, making it much harder for phishers and spoofers to trick users, thereby reducing the effectiveness of email fraud and strengthening trust in brand communications.

Why has BIMI adoption been slow and what are its implementation challenges? - Technical - Email deliverability - Knowledge base

Brand Indicators for Message Identification (BIMI) was introduced to allow organizations to display their trademarked logos next to their email sender information in recipient inboxes. The goal was to boost brand recognition, build trust, and enhance email security by making it easier for users to identify legitimate senders. Despite these compelling benefits, BIMI's adoption has been notably slow across the email landscape.

I often hear marketers and technical teams question why more brands aren't leveraging this visible security indicator. The reality is that while the concept is simple, the implementation involves several layers of technical complexity, cost, and a fragmented support ecosystem that collectively act as significant barriers. I'll delve into the primary reasons behind this slow rollout and the challenges many encounter when trying to implement BIMI.

The promise of BIMI and its anticipated impact

When BIMI first emerged, there was a great deal of excitement about its potential. Imagine your brand's official logo appearing directly in the inbox, making your emails instantly recognizable and trustworthy. This visual validation was expected to significantly reduce phishing attempts and improve user engagement. For email marketers, the prospect of enhanced brand presence and improved open rates was particularly appealing, offering a new way to stand out in crowded inboxes.

The promise extended beyond aesthetics. BIMI is intrinsically tied to strong email authentication protocols like SPF, DKIM, and critically, DMARC. By requiring a domain to have a DMARC policy enforced at quarantine or reject, BIMI ensures that only authenticated, legitimate emails from a domain can display the logo. This linkage strengthens the overall email security ecosystem, making it harder for malicious actors to spoof domains.

Early discussions from organizations like the AuthIndicators Working Group, which developed the BIMI standard, painted a picture of rapid adoption. The expectation was that as major mailbox providers like

Gmail and

Yahoo Mail began supporting it, others would quickly follow suit. The industry collectively anticipated a shift towards a more visually rich and secure email experience, a significant step in the future of email beyond just plain text messages.

Navigating technical prerequisites

One of the most significant roadblocks to BIMI adoption lies in its technical prerequisites. Before even considering a BIMI record, a domain must have a DMARC policy set to p=quarantine or p=reject. This means the domain owner must be confident that all legitimate emails are correctly authenticated via SPF and DKIM, or risk having their own mail quarantined or rejected. Many organizations are still at p=none (monitoring only), or have not yet implemented DMARC at all, which makes BIMI inaccessible. Moving to an enforcement policy requires careful planning and robust DMARC monitoring to avoid disrupting email flow.

The logo itself also has specific requirements. It must be in SVG format, square, and hosted on a secure server (HTTPS). The SVG file needs to meet particular specifications, including a base-profile of tiny-ps, which many designers are not familiar with. Creating or converting logos to this precise format can be a minor but nonetheless real barrier. Then, the BIMI record itself must be published as a DNS TXT entry, pointing to the SVG file.

Furthermore, for some major mailbox providers, such as

Google's Gmail, a Verified Mark Certificate (VMC) or Common Mark Certificate (CMC) is required. This certificate verifies that your organization is the legitimate owner of the logo and has the rights to use it. Obtaining a VMC involves a rigorous process with a Certificate Authority, adding another layer of complexity that goes beyond standard DNS management.

Example BIMI DNS TXT RecordDNS

default._bimi.yourdomain.com. IN TXT "v=BIMI1; l=https://yourdomain.com/path/to/your/logo.svg; a=https://yourdomain.com/path/to/your/vmc.pem;"

Ensuring DMARC enforcement

A strong DMARC policy (p=quarantine or p=reject) is non-negotiable for BIMI. Without it, your logo will not display. This foundation is crucial for verifying email authenticity and preventing phishing.

If you are currently at a p=none policy, consider gradually moving to quarantine and then to reject. Regularly reviewing DMARC reports is key to identifying and resolving any authentication issues before tightening your policy.

Cost and the certification hurdle

The requirement for a Verified Mark Certificate (VMC) is a major cost barrier for many organizations. These certificates, which digitally link your logo to your trademark, are not free. They involve annual fees and can add significant expense, especially for companies managing multiple domains or those with smaller marketing budgets. This financial outlay can be difficult to justify if the perceived return on investment (ROI) from BIMI is not immediately clear or if the audience using supporting email clients is small.

Beyond the monetary cost, the process of obtaining a VMC is also complex and time-consuming. It requires the brand's logo to be a registered trademark, which itself can be a lengthy and expensive legal process. Once trademarked, the application for a VMC involves rigorous validation by an accredited Certificate Authority (CA) to ensure the applicant has the legal right to use the logo. This entire BIMI implementation process can be daunting for many organizations, especially those lacking dedicated legal or email security teams.

While

Gmail has expanded its support to include Common Mark Certificates (CMCs) in some cases, which may offer a slightly less stringent path, the fundamental requirement for some form of verified logo still exists. This acts as a quality control mechanism, preventing bad actors from simply uploading any logo, but it simultaneously slows legitimate adoption. I've heard many discussions about BIMI's true value for organizations that are not

Costco or

Google.

Implementation without VMC

Requirements: DMARC at enforcement, SVG logo hosted securely, BIMI DNS TXT record.
Cost: Minimal, primarily related to DMARC setup and logo hosting.
Providers: Supported by some mailbox providers, including Fastmail and AOL.
Benefit: Increased brand visibility and trust for supported clients without the VMC cost.

Implementation with VMC (or CMC)

Requirements: All of the above, plus a Verified Mark Certificate issued by a Certificate Authority.
Cost: Significant annual fees for the VMC, plus potential costs for trademark registration.
Providers: Required by Gmail for logo display, among others for specific features.
Benefit: Highest level of brand authentication, preventing logo spoofing and ensuring display across more clients.

Limited client support and market awareness

A significant factor hindering BIMI adoption is the fragmented and evolving support landscape among email clients. While

Gmail and

Yahoo Mail (and

Mail.ru) have been key early adopters, many other prominent email clients, including various corporate and desktop clients, have been slower to implement full BIMI support. This means that even if a brand correctly implements BIMI, its logo might only appear for a portion of its audience, diminishing the universal impact and motivation for investment.

The lack of pervasive client support creates a chicken-and-egg problem. Brands are hesitant to invest in BIMI because not all clients support it, and clients may be slow to support it because not enough brands are implementing it. This impasse has contributed to the glacial pace of adoption. I often advise clients to check BIMI client support before committing resources.

Another often overlooked challenge is simply the lack of awareness. Many marketing and even IT professionals are not fully informed about BIMI, its benefits, or the steps required for its implementation. The focus often remains on basic email deliverability and compliance with general sender requirements. Without strong advocacy or clear directives, BIMI can remain a low-priority item on a long list of technical initiatives. The

high error rates in BIMI implementation further compound the problem, signaling complexity to those considering it.

Views from the trenches

Best practices

Ensure your DMARC policy is set to p=quarantine or p=reject before starting BIMI.

Verify your logo meets SVG tiny 1.2 profile and is hosted on HTTPS.

Choose a reputable Certificate Authority for your Verified Mark Certificate.

Common pitfalls

Not having a strong DMARC policy in place.

Using an SVG logo that doesn't meet BIMI specifications.

Failing to obtain a Verified Mark Certificate when required by a major client.

Expert tips

BIMI is not a silver bullet, it's an enhancement for authenticated mail.

The cost of VMCs can be a significant barrier for smaller organizations.

Trademarking your logo is a prerequisite for obtaining a VMC.

Marketer view

Marketer from Email Geeks says they applied a year ago for a BIMI pilot and received no response, indicating slow progress.

2019-02-15 - Email Geeks

Expert view

Expert from Email Geeks says BIMI adoption has been slow despite its seemingly simple DNS TXT record setup for logos, noting the complexity introduced by the required BIMI certification and DMARC alignment.

2019-02-15 - Email Geeks

Overcoming adoption hurdles

BIMI offers a clear pathway to enhanced brand visibility and email security, but its slow adoption stems from a combination of factors. The stringent technical requirements, especially the need for a DMARC enforcement policy and the specific SVG logo format, demand a solid foundation in email authentication. The additional hurdle of obtaining a Verified Mark Certificate, with its associated costs and complex legal validation process, presents a significant barrier for many organizations.

Furthermore, the inconsistent support across various email clients and a general lack of widespread awareness among businesses dampen the incentive to implement. While the benefits of BIMI, like increased trust and reduced email fraud, are compelling, these challenges require a strategic approach and dedicated resources. As more mailbox providers adopt and streamline BIMI implementation, I expect to see adoption accelerate, solidifying its place as a crucial component of modern email security and branding.