Summary
Validity's decision to introduce fees for individual Abuse Reporting Format (ARF) reports, part of their Universal Feedback Loop (UFL) service, sparked significant discussion within the email deliverability community. Previously a free service since 2009, this change aims to offset growing operating costs. While an aggregated view of complaint data remains free, senders now face an annual fee for granular, per-complaint ARF data. The announcement was met with mixed reactions due to perceived short notice, unclear communication, and the critical role ARF reports play in managing email abuse reports. For more details on the pricing structure, refer to validity's UFBL pricing tiers.
Key findings
- Service segmentation: Validity has introduced a tiered system for its Universal Feedback Loop (UFL) service, offering an aggregated complaint trends view for free, while individual ARF reports now require a paid upgrade.
- Cost structure: The price for receiving ARF reports is $1,500 USD annually, covering up to 100,000 complaints.
- Communication issues: The announcement of these changes was poorly managed, with inconsistent messaging (some users notified of charges, others only of enhancements) and short lead times (approximately 10 days) before implementation.
- Operating costs: Validity justified the new fees by stating that the service had been underwritten since 2009 and that operating costs had increased, with fees partially covering the transport of individual ARF reports. You can learn more about this from this article on Validity’s FBL pricing.
- FBL independence: It is important to note that Microsoft (JMRP) and Yahoo (CFL) maintain their own feedback loop services independent of Validity.
Key considerations
- Immediate impact: The shift impacts senders' ability to swiftly respond to spam complaints without access to detailed ARF data, which is crucial for maintaining a healthy sender reputation.
- Budgeting challenges: The short notification period poses significant challenges for companies needing to secure budget approvals, especially when considering annual financial cycles and upcoming peak seasons.
- Enrollment clarity: The lack of clear sign-up procedures or transparent pricing details further complicated the transition for affected users.
- Monopoly concerns: Concerns were raised about Validity's monopolistic position in providing these FBLs, with some speculating that ISPs might revert to direct FBL provisions if senders refuse to pay.
- Historical context: It is worth acknowledging Return Path’s (now Validity) historical role in establishing FBLs with many US cable companies, which significantly contributed to the broader email ecosystem.
What email marketers say
Email marketers widely expressed their dissatisfaction with Validity's decision to charge for Universal FBL ARF reports. The primary concerns revolved around the unexpected cost for a previously free and essential service, the vague communication leading up to the change, and the insufficient time given to adapt. Many felt that access to spam complaint data is fundamental for maintaining a good sender reputation and should remain freely available to encourage best practices for managing spam complaints.
Key opinions
- Disappointment: Many marketers expressed shock and disappointment that crucial data for managing deliverability would be paywalled after being free for so long.
- Lack of transparency: There was widespread frustration over the lack of clear pricing details and a straightforward sign-up process for the new paid service.
- Short notice: The very short notice given for such a significant change was problematic for budget planning and operational adjustments.
- Essential data: Marketers argued that FBL data is essential for adopting best practices and should be accessible for free.
- Past experiences: Some users drew parallels to previous negative experiences with Validity's pricing changes for other services, such as BriteVerify.
- No alternative: A key point of frustration was the lack of readily available alternative FBL services directly from most ISPs, making Validity's offering seem like a monopoly.
Key considerations
- Operational impact: Marketers need immediate access to ARF reports to manage spam complaints effectively and maintain good sender reputation.
- Budget cycles: The timing of the price increase, particularly towards the end of the year and heading into peak season, creates significant budget flexibility issues for many companies.
- Sales process friction: The potential need to navigate Validity's enterprise sales processes for FBLs, rather than a simple self-service sign-up, was viewed as a major obstacle.
- ESP adjustments: Email service providers rely on FBL data for their algorithms and alerts; any disruption or unaffordable pricing could necessitate time-consuming adjustments.
Marketer view
A marketer from Email Geeks shared their disappointment, stating that everyone should receive FBL data for free to ensure they can act on it. They questioned how senders are expected to adopt best practices if spam complaints are behind a paywall.
Marketer view
An email marketer from a marketing forum highlighted the shocking nature of Validity's new charges. They stressed that essential tools for compliance and best practices should not be monetized, as it hinders the entire industry's progress.
What the experts say
Deliverability experts largely echoed the concerns of email marketers regarding Validity's decision to monetize Universal FBL ARF reports. Their opinions centered on the unsatisfactory communication strategy, the impractical timeline for implementation, and the broader implications for the email ecosystem. There was a strong sentiment that FBL data is a public good necessary for maintaining internet hygiene and should therefore remain accessible without cost to ESPs and senders.
Key opinions
- Muddled messaging: Experts noted that Validity’s communication was inconsistent, with different messages sent to various customers, leading to confusion.
- Short window: The 10-day notice period for a significant policy change and an undisclosed price increase was deemed unacceptable and badly managed.
- Data leveraging: Some experts felt it was disingenuous for Validity to claim they were not profiting from the free service, suggesting they leveraged the data in other ways.
- Monopoly criticism: An expert highlighted that Validity's position as a sole provider for certain FBLs created a monopoly, allowing them to monetize a service senders considered essential.
- ISP reactions: There was speculation that if Validity begins charging, ISPs might revolt and revert to providing FBLs directly to senders, as Microsoft and Yahoo already do independently. You can find more information about this at this article discussing the FBL changes.
Key considerations
- Clarity needed: Validity must provide clear information on pricing and the sign-up process to mitigate customer frustration and maintain trust.
- Timing impact: The timing of the change, close to year-end budgeting and peak mailing seasons, demonstrates a lack of consideration for industry operational realities.
- Return path legacy: While Validity inherited the FBL service, acknowledging Return Path’s historical contribution to bringing FBLs to many ISPs is important.
- Reputation: Validity's reputation has been strained by past acquisitions and policy changes, and transparency is crucial for rebuilding confidence within the community.
Expert view
A deliverability expert from Email Geeks advised that Microsoft and Yahoo's FBLs, JMRP and CFL respectively, operate independently and do not rely on Validity for their services.
Expert view
An industry veteran from Spam Resource suggested that if Validity truly starts charging for the Universal FBL, it could provoke ISPs to reconsider their arrangements and potentially revert to managing their own feedback loops directly with senders.
What the documentation says
Validity's official communications clarified their rationale for introducing fees for Universal Feedback Loop (UFL) ARF reports. The company stated that the FBL service, offered free since 2009, has seen its operating costs increase significantly. To sustain the platform and cover the transport of individual ARF reports, a service fee has been implemented. Validity emphasized their continued commitment to offering a free aggregated view of FBL data and enhancing report effectiveness for users, maintaining that feedback reports are a cornerstone of good deliverability. For more on the function of feedback loops, consider reading about how Gmail's FBL works or the benefits of Google's FBL.
Key findings
- Historical offering: The Universal Feedback Loop service has been provided at no cost by Validity since 2009.
- Cost recovery: Validity introduced service fees for individual ARF reports to cover the increasing operating costs associated with the platform and data transport.
- Free tier retention: An aggregated view of complaint trends, categorized by provider and group for the last 120 days, will continue to be offered for free.
- Pricing details: The price for ARF reports is $1,500 USD annually for up to 100,000 complaints.
- Implementation date: Changes to the service model and login experience were scheduled to occur on September 21, 2023.
- Subscriber notification: All subscribers were informed that they would receive specific follow-up information regarding the impact of these changes on their accounts in the coming weeks. For an external perspective on this, refer to this analysis of Validity's FBL charges.
Key considerations
- Sustainability: Validity views the service fee as necessary to ensure the long-term sustainability of the FBL platform, having absorbed costs for over a decade.
- Deliverability keystone: The company maintains that feedback reports are critical for effective deliverability practices and their commitment to facilitating this information exchange remains.
- Improved effectiveness: Validity plans to develop new reports to improve the overall effectiveness of the FBL service for its users moving forward.
- Communication acknowledged: Validity acknowledged that their initial communication regarding the changes may not have been sufficiently clear, and stated that they were taking community feedback seriously.
Technical article
A Validity representative confirmed that the company has been offering its Feedback Loop Service (FBL) at no cost since 2009, emphasizing that an aggregated FBL service will still be available for free. This statement aimed to clarify the ongoing free offering amidst the new pricing structure.
Technical article
According to Validity's official communication, increasing operating costs necessitated the introduction of a service fee for individual ARF reports. The company explained that it had underwritten the service for over a decade and that these new fees would partially cover the transport of these specific reports.
Related resources
1 resources
Related pages
How does Gmail's feedback loop (FBL) work and what data does it provide?
What are the costs of email list validation tools and best practices for maintaining list validity?
What are the benefits and downsides of using Google's feedback loop (FBL) for email complaints, and what alternative tracking methods are available?
Are abuse reports and feedback loops (FBLs) still useful in email marketing, and how do they work with different email clients?
What are the pricing tiers for Validity's universal feedback loop (UFBL) ARF reports, and how do they compare?
What is the pricing structure for Validity's feedback loop (FBL) service and how does it work?
What are the best alternatives to Validity for inbox deliverability services and reporting?
How do spam complaints from Google and Yahoo inform ESPs, and how should ARF reports be used?
How critical are feedback loops (FBLs) for sender reputation, and how often do they require re-enrollment?
Which major email providers offer feedback loops (FBLs)?
