What are the pricing tiers for Validity's Universal Feedback Loop (UFBL) ARF reports, and how do they compare?

Key findings

• Base tier cost: The initial announced price for the ARF service is $1,500 US annually for up to 100,000 complaints.
• Per-complaint breakdown: While offered in 100k blocks, the implied rate is around $150 per 10,000 complaints, translating to $0.015 per complaint for lower volumes.
• Higher volume tiers: A tier for 250,001 to 1,250,000 ARF FBLs is quoted at $10,000 annually. This suggests a per-complaint cost of $0.04 at the lower end of the range, decreasing to $0.008 at the upper end.
• Pricing inconsistencies: There have been observations of a less favorable per-complaint rate for medium-volume tiers compared to the base tier, suggesting a non-linear graduated scale.
• Bundled services: Clients who have an ARF subscription in conjunction with other Validity products (like Everest) may find the service bundled, exempting them from direct charges.

Key considerations

• Impact on deliverability: Access to ARF (Abuse Report Format) data is critical for managing spam complaints and maintaining sender reputation, making the new pricing a significant factor for email senders. Learn more about why feedback loops are still useful.
• Cost evaluation: Organizations should carefully evaluate their actual complaint volumes against the announced tiers to understand the true per-complaint cost for their specific usage. This is vital given the shifts in pricing for different complaint ranges.
• Negotiation opportunities: For high-volume senders, the wide gaps in pricing tiers might present opportunities for direct negotiation with Validity to secure more favorable rates based on precise complaint numbers. This is particularly relevant given Validity's shift to paid FBLs.
• Alternative considerations: Marketers may need to explore alternatives for obtaining complaint data or managing their sender reputation if the new pricing proves prohibitive. Understand the benefits and downsides of Google's FBL as one example.

Key opinions

• Pricing discrepancies: Marketers are observing different quoted prices for similar complaint volumes, leading to confusion and distrust. This highlights the importance of understanding the reasons behind Validity's new charges.
• Non-linear pricing: Concerns have been raised that the per-complaint cost increases at certain volume thresholds, which goes against the typical expectation of graduated pricing (where higher volume yields lower per-unit cost).
• Impact on smaller senders: Even with the base $1500 annual fee, some smaller ESPs or businesses might find the cost significant, potentially leading them to forgo direct ARF report access.
• Lack of transparency: The initial vagueness and subsequent updates to pricing information have left some marketers feeling that the process lacks sufficient clarity and planning.

Key considerations

• Budgeting for FBLs: Marketers must now explicitly budget for UFBL ARF reports, whereas previously they may have received this data for free or as part of other Validity services. This also influences how Validity's FBL pricing works.
• Understanding complaint volume: It's crucial for marketers to accurately track their complaint volumes to assess which tier they fall into and what their actual costs will be.
• Strategic decision making: The new pricing may force marketers to re-evaluate the value of detailed ARF data versus aggregated views, or to seek alternative ways to monitor spam complaints.
• Monitoring communication: Staying informed about official announcements and clarifications from Validity regarding their pricing models and tiers is essential to avoid surprises.

Key opinions

• Tiered pricing logic: Validity's rationale for tiered pricing reflects a volume-based approach, with higher complaint volumes ideally leading to a lower per-complaint cost, although inconsistencies have been noted.
• Adaptation to usage data: The pricing structure is intended to evolve with more data on usage, potentially allowing for smaller complaint blocks and more refined tiers in the future.
• CRM system integration: Validity has stated they have linked most Everest accounts to UFBL accounts within their CRM system to manage exemptions for bundled clients.
• Communication improvements: Validity acknowledges that initial communication about pricing was vague and has been updated to provide greater clarity on the costs and enrollment process. This underscores the need for clear communication about FBL data usage.

Key considerations

• Customer account mapping: Customers should verify their account linkage if they have both Everest and UFBL subscriptions to ensure they receive appropriate exemptions. The question of how ARF reports identify recipients for list removal is key.
• Pricing model clarity: While Validity states the pricing reflects volume, the apparent 'transition cost' within tiers needs to be clarified to avoid customer confusion and dissatisfaction.
• Feedback integration: Ongoing customer feedback regarding wide pricing gaps and per-complaint cost inversions is being taken into account by Validity's pricing team for future adjustments.
• Access and enrollment: Customers should be aware of specific dates for accessing order forms and new summary reporting, and understand how long they will continue to receive ARF reports based on their account configuration. Feedback loops enable MSPs to inform ESPs.

Key findings

• Service monetization: Validity's blog post indicates the primary reason for the change is to monetize the Universal FBL service for standalone subscribers.
• Initial pricing tier: The documented cost is $1,500 US annually for up to 100,000 complaints.
• Exempt client groups: Clients with an ARF subscription bundled with other Validity deliverability products (e.g., Everest) are exempt from this direct charge.
• ESP collaboration: Validity is working with the ESP community to determine a path forward, and ESPs will not be subject to the change until a resolution is found.
• Order form availability: The online order form for new subscriptions or changes was scheduled to be available from September 21st.

Key considerations

• Subscription status: Organizations need to understand their current relationship with Validity and whether their UFBL access is standalone or bundled to determine if they will incur new costs. Refer to Validity's official announcement.
• Data access alternatives: If paying for ARF reports is not feasible, the documentation implies that subscribers can opt for the aggregated view, though this provides less granular data for complaint resolution. Tools can send ARF reports.
• Enrollment timeline: Key dates for enrollment and accessing new reporting features were communicated, requiring timely action from affected users.
• Ongoing policy changes: The indication that pricing and specific configurations are subject to further refinement suggests that affected parties should remain updated on Validity's policy changes.