Summary
BIMI adoption faces a range of challenges, primarily stemming from its prerequisite for strong DMARC enforcement, which many organizations find difficult or are hesitant to implement. Significant financial and administrative burdens are also associated with obtaining and maintaining a Verified Mark Certificate (VMC), a mandatory component for displaying a brand logo. Furthermore, technical complexities related to DNS record setup and strict SVG logo formatting, along with a general lack of brand awareness and inconsistent email client support, collectively contribute to its slow, measured uptake in the email ecosystem. As a relatively new standard still in beta, BIMI also requires ongoing industry-wide support and development to overcome these hurdles.
Key findings
- Cost & Admin Overhead: The financial and administrative costs of obtaining and renewing a Verified Mark Certificate (VMC) are major barriers, making BIMI less accessible for some organizations, especially small businesses.
- DMARC Enforcement Prerequisite: Widespread BIMI adoption is constrained by the necessity of a DMARC policy set to 'quarantine' or 'reject,' which many organizations are unable or unwilling to implement due to concerns about legitimate email delivery.
- Technical Implementation Complexity: Setting up BIMI involves significant technical challenges, including precise DNS TXT record configuration, adherence to the strict SVG Tiny P/S format for logos, and ensuring logos meet specific sizing and validation requirements.
- Limited Awareness & Value Perception: Many brands lack awareness of BIMI's existence and benefits, and some do not perceive sufficient value to justify the associated effort, cost, and time investment.
- Inconsistent Support & Beta Status: Varying levels of support across different email clients and mailbox providers, combined with BIMI's current beta status and evolving nature, contribute to its slow momentum and inconsistent visibility.
Key considerations
- DMARC Policy Readiness: Organizations must prioritize achieving DMARC enforcement at a 'quarantine' or 'reject' policy, which often requires substantial time and resources, particularly for complex domain structures.
- VMC Investment & Maintenance: Brands should budget for the initial cost of a Verified Mark Certificate (VMC) and factor in ongoing renewal fees and administrative oversight.
- Technical & Design Demands: Be prepared for precise technical configuration of DNS records and the potential need for design work to convert brand logos to the required SVG Tiny P/S format.
- Long-Term Operational Commitment: BIMI adoption implies an ongoing commitment to monitoring DMARC policies and managing VMC renewals, adding continuous operational and financial overhead.
- Ecosystem Maturity: Recognize that BIMI is still gaining broader support across the email ecosystem, meaning its benefits, such as consistent logo display, may not be universally experienced in the short term.
What email marketers say
9 marketer opinions
BIMI's path to widespread adoption has been slow due to a confluence of technical, financial, and organizational hurdles. A fundamental requirement, achieving DMARC enforcement at a 'quarantine' or 'reject' policy, proves challenging for many, especially large enterprises managing complex domain structures. For smaller businesses, the combined expenses of obtaining a Verified Mark Certificate (VMC) and upgrading their email authentication infrastructure can be prohibitively costly. Furthermore, the technical intricacies of converting logos to the specific SVG Tiny P/S format, coupled with the ongoing operational demands of DMARC monitoring and VMC renewals, add layers of complexity. Beyond these practicalities, a general lack of awareness among brands about BIMI's benefits, along with the standard's current beta status and the overall slower pace of advanced email authentication adoption, collectively contribute to its measured progress in the email ecosystem.
Key opinions
- DMARC Prerequisite Burden: Achieving DMARC enforcement at 'quarantine' or 'reject' is a significant, resource-intensive undertaking for many organizations, particularly large ones with diverse domain portfolios.
- High Financial Barriers: The costs associated with obtaining a Verified Mark Certificate (VMC) and necessary infrastructure upgrades for DMARC can be prohibitive for small businesses.
- Ongoing Operational Commitment: BIMI requires continuous monitoring of DMARC policies and regular VMC renewals, presenting an ongoing financial and administrative burden.
- Complex Logo Formatting: The necessity to convert brand logos to the specific SVG Tiny P/S format with strict sizing and content requirements is a complex technical and design challenge.
- Industry Adoption Pace: The overall slow adoption of advanced email authentication standards across the industry inherently delays the widespread uptake of BIMI, which relies on this foundational security.
- Awareness and Perceived Value: Many brands remain unaware of BIMI or do not see sufficient compelling value to justify the effort, time, and cost of implementation.
- Beta Status and Time Investment: BIMI's current beta status and the substantial time investment required for its full implementation, from DMARC to VMC and DNS configurations, contribute to its slower momentum.
Key considerations
- Strategic DMARC Implementation: Organizations must strategically plan and allocate significant resources for achieving and maintaining DMARC enforcement policies, as this is the foundational step for BIMI.
- Budgeting for VMC & Infrastructure: Brands should budget for both the initial and ongoing costs associated with Verified Mark Certificates and potential email authentication infrastructure upgrades.
- Technical Design Expertise: Be prepared to dedicate design and technical resources to accurately convert and manage brand logos according to BIMI's strict SVG Tiny P/S format and validation requirements.
- Long-Term Commitment: Recognize that BIMI implementation is not a one-time setup but an ongoing operational commitment involving continuous monitoring and renewal processes.
- Assess Value Proposition: Brands should thoroughly assess the perceived value and potential ROI of BIMI adoption against the required investment in time, resources, and cost.
- Monitor Industry Evolution: Stay informed about BIMI's development and broader industry adoption of email authentication standards, as these factors will influence its future momentum and benefits.
Marketer view
Email marketer from Email Geeks explains that BIMI involves a simple DNS TXT entry pointing to logos, detailing the required record format and image sizing. Ty also highlights that a BIMI certificate and DMARC alignment are likely necessary to prevent unauthorized logo use and brand impersonation.
7 May 2025 - Email Geeks
Marketer view
Email marketer from Email Geeks shares that BIMI is currently in beta mode, has been quiet for some months, but is expected to regain momentum soon.
26 Apr 2025 - Email Geeks
What the experts say
3 expert opinions
BIMI's slower-than-anticipated uptake is primarily due to its intricate implementation process, which includes the fundamental requirement of a DMARC policy set to 'reject'. Brands also face significant hurdles in obtaining a Verified Mark Certificate (VMC), a process that adds both financial cost and administrative effort, compounded by the necessity of a registered trademark for the logo. Furthermore, challenges related to preventing unauthorized brand impersonation and ensuring accurate logo validation contribute to the cautious pace. As a 'pull' technology, BIMI's broad adoption hinges on increased support from mailbox providers and its evolution as a new standard.
Key opinions
- Strict DMARC Policy: BIMI necessitates a DMARC policy enforced at 'p=reject', a stricter requirement than many organizations currently meet, posing a significant hurdle.
- VMC & Trademark Burden: Obtaining a Verified Mark Certificate (VMC) is costly, administratively intensive, and requires a registered trademark for the logo, presenting significant barriers to adoption.
- Anti-Impersonation Challenges: A core challenge for BIMI involves developing robust mechanisms to prevent unauthorized brand impersonation and ensure the accurate validation of official logos.
- Mailbox Provider Dependency: BIMI functions as a 'pull' technology, meaning its benefits are only realized as more mailbox providers actively implement and support the standard, limiting its immediate universal impact.
- Technical & Abuse Management Focus: The standard is still in its beta phase, with ongoing development focused on refining technical implementation and effectively managing potential abuse.
Key considerations
- Achieve 'p=reject' DMARC: Brands must commit to advancing their DMARC policy to 'p=reject' to fully leverage BIMI, which can be a complex and time-consuming process.
- Budget for VMC & Trademark: Financial planning should include the costs associated with both acquiring a Verified Mark Certificate and ensuring the brand's logo is a registered trademark.
- Address Impersonation Risks: Organizations adopting BIMI must be mindful of the ongoing efforts to secure the standard against brand impersonation and logo misuse.
- Monitor Ecosystem Support: Since BIMI's display depends on mailbox provider adoption, brands should monitor the evolving support landscape to gauge its visibility.
- Understand Beta Development: Recognize that BIMI is still under active development, particularly concerning abuse prevention and validation processes.
Expert view
Expert from Email Geeks explains that a major challenge for BIMI adoption is preventing unauthorized brand impersonation and ensuring accurate logo validation. Laura confirms the necessity of DMARC alignment, specifically with a 'p=reject' policy, and notes that the current BIMI beta is focused on developing methods to manage potential abuse effectively.
10 Feb 2023 - Email Geeks
Expert view
Expert from Spam Resource explains that BIMI adoption has been slow due to the technical complexity of setting up DNS records, the requirement for a Verified Mark Certificate (VMC) which adds cost and administrative burden, and the inherent nature of BIMI as a 'pull' technology that requires mailbox providers to implement support. The article highlights that it's a new standard needing broad adoption across the email ecosystem.
2 Nov 2021 - Spam Resource
What the documentation says
5 technical articles
The limited adoption of BIMI stems from a series of significant hurdles, including the substantial financial and administrative costs associated with acquiring and maintaining a Verified Mark Certificate (VMC). A core barrier is the strict prerequisite for organizations to implement a DMARC policy set to 'quarantine' or 'reject', a step many are hesitant to take due to potential impacts on email delivery. Furthermore, the technical complexities of setting up accurate DNS TXT records and converting logos to the precise SVG Tiny P/S format present considerable implementation challenges. The inconsistent support for BIMI across various email clients and mailbox providers also means that brands may not see uniform display of their efforts.
Key findings
- VMC Cost and Admin Burden: The Verified Mark Certificate (VMC) carries considerable cost and administrative overhead, making BIMI adoption less feasible or desirable for some organizations, particularly smaller ones.
- DMARC Enforcement Prerequisite: A major impediment is the mandatory DMARC policy requirement of 'quarantine' or 'reject', which organizations are often reluctant to enforce due to concerns over potentially blocking legitimate email traffic.
- Technical Setup Complexity: Implementing BIMI demands precise technical configuration, including setting up specific DNS TXT records and adhering to the strict SVG Tiny P/S format for brand logos, requiring specialized knowledge.
- Varying Mailbox Provider Support: Inconsistent support levels across different email clients and mailbox providers mean brand logos may not be uniformly displayed, diminishing the perceived value of implementation efforts.
Key considerations
- Financial & Administrative Planning for VMC: Organizations should account for the cost and administrative effort involved in obtaining and renewing the Verified Mark Certificate, which is essential for displaying a brand logo.
- Strategic DMARC Advancement: It is crucial for brands to strategically plan and execute the progression of their DMARC policy to a 'quarantine' or 'reject' enforcement level, as this is a mandatory prerequisite for BIMI.
- Technical Expertise for Configuration: Companies must ensure they have the necessary technical knowledge and resources to accurately configure DNS TXT records and convert logos to the required SVG Tiny P/S format for proper BIMI validation.
- Manage Expectations for Display Consistency: Brands should be aware that logo display can vary due to differing levels of BIMI support across email clients and mailbox providers, impacting uniform visibility.
Technical article
Documentation from Entrust explains that a significant hurdle to BIMI adoption is the cost and administrative overhead associated with obtaining and maintaining a Verified Mark Certificate (VMC), which is mandatory for displaying a brand logo, making it less accessible for some organizations.
2 Jan 2025 - Entrust Blog
Technical article
Documentation from DMARC.org highlights that a primary reason for slow BIMI adoption is the prerequisite of having a DMARC policy set to 'quarantine' or 'reject', which many organizations are hesitant or unable to implement due to concerns about potentially blocking legitimate emails.
22 Sep 2022 - DMARC.org Wiki
Is BIMI easily spoofed and are there drawbacks to BIMI implementation?
What are the costs and steps for implementing BIMI (Brand Indicators for Message Identification)?
What are the requirements for BIMI, and how do I troubleshoot authentication failures?
What are the requirements to implement BIMI, and which providers support it?
What is the value of BIMI and when does implementing it not make a difference?
Where can I find statistics on BIMI adoption by email senders?
