What are the biggest gripes about deliverability services offered by ESPs?

Key findings

• Data obfuscation: Many ESPs hide critical deliverability data like raw SMTP responses and specific bounce messages, providing only generalized categories such as 'hard bounce' or 'soft bounce.' This lack of granular detail makes troubleshooting complex deliverability issues significantly harder for senders.
• Lack of control over authentication: Users frequently express frustration over ESPs forcing specific CNAME schemes for DKIM, rather than allowing customers to easily implement and manage their own DKIM keys. This can limit a sender's control over their authentication protocols, which are vital for establishing sender trust.
• Inadequate support expertise: There's a common complaint about ESP support teams, who, despite being well-meaning, may lack sufficient training or deep deliverability knowledge, leading to generic or inaccurate advice. This often stems from an overreliance on pre-scripted responses or a lack of practical experience with complex deliverability challenges.
• Generic advice and resources: ESPs often provide broad deliverability guidelines or content marketing materials that are not always accurate or tailored to specific sending scenarios, sometimes even relying on AI-generated content without expert review. This can mislead marketers trying to improve their inbox placement.
• Opaque reporting: Reports can be filtered or simplified by ESPs to present a less alarming picture to customers, rather than showing the raw, unfiltered data needed for thorough analysis. This can make it difficult to truly diagnose and address underlying deliverability problems.

Key considerations

• Complement ESP tools: Given the limitations of ESPs, consider using independent deliverability monitoring tools to gain deeper insights and access to raw data. This can fill gaps in ESP reporting.
• Understand shared responsibility: Recognize that deliverability is a shared responsibility between the sender and the ESP. While ESPs manage infrastructure, the sender's list hygiene, content quality, and sending practices play a crucial role. For more on this, check out this article on ESP and deliverability responsibility.
• Proactive monitoring: Implement proactive monitoring of your sender reputation and email authentication to catch issues before they escalate, rather than relying solely on your ESP's dashboard.
• Advocate for data access: Push your ESP for more transparent data access, such as raw bounce logs and detailed delivery reports, which are essential for advanced troubleshooting.
• Educate your team: Ensure your marketing and email operations teams are well-versed in email deliverability best practices, reducing reliance on potentially under-trained ESP support staff.

Key opinions

• Limited access to bounce data: Marketers frequently complain about ESPs only showing high-level 'hard bounce' or 'soft bounce' categories instead of detailed SMTP responses, which hinders effective troubleshooting.
• Forced DKIM configuration: A common frustration is the inability to use their own DKIM keys, with ESPs often mandating their CNAME schemes, which restricts a marketer's flexibility in managing their domain authentication.
• Opaque reporting practices: Many marketers feel that ESPs filter or alter delivery data before presenting it, preventing them from seeing the full, raw picture of their email performance and deliverability challenges.
• Subpar content advice: Some marketers find that ESPs' content marketing or deliverability guides are often inaccurate or overly simplified, possibly due to inexperienced writers or reliance on AI, rather than practical expertise.
• Insufficient support training: There's a recurring sentiment that ESP support staff, while well-intentioned, often lack the deep, nuanced training required to provide truly effective deliverability assistance, leading to frustrating interactions.

Key considerations

• Push for data transparency: Actively request raw bounce logs and detailed delivery reports from your ESP. Understanding the underlying SMTP responses is crucial for diagnosing complex issues.
• Leverage external tools: Since ESPs may not offer full visibility, consider tools like email deliverability testers or DMARC monitoring platforms to get a clearer, unbiased view of your inbox placement.
• Understand authentication options: While ESPs often prefer CNAMEs, it's beneficial to understand how SPF, DKIM, and DMARC work independently and to push for more direct control where possible.
• Diversify information sources: Do not rely solely on your ESP's content for deliverability best practices. Consult reputable blogs, industry forums, and independent deliverability test results.
• Evaluate support quality during selection: When choosing an ESP, inquire specifically about the depth of their deliverability support team's expertise and their training programs, beyond basic customer service queries.

Key opinions

• Insufficient raw data access: Experts consistently point out the lack of granular data, such as full SMTP transaction logs, which prevents deep-dive analysis into deliverability issues beyond superficial metrics provided by ESPs.
• Limited custom authentication options: Many ESPs restrict clients from using their own DKIM keys or implementing advanced authentication configurations, compelling them to use ESP-specific CNAME setups that may offer less control or flexibility.
• Opaque IP pool management: There's often a lack of transparency regarding how ESPs manage their shared IP pools and the impact of other senders on a client's deliverability. This can lead to unexpected blacklisting or inbox placement issues.
• Reactive vs. Proactive support: ESPs tend to offer reactive support once deliverability problems occur, rather than proactive monitoring, alert systems, or preventative advice that could help clients avoid issues altogether.
• Generic advice vs. expertise: Experts critique the generalized deliverability advice provided by some ESPs, which may not be based on deep, current industry knowledge or specific client needs, often falling short for complex scenarios.
• Reporting accuracy and completeness: The accuracy and completeness of ESP reporting tools are often questioned, with reports sometimes simplifying or omitting crucial metrics necessary for a holistic view of deliverability.

Key considerations

• Demand transparency: When selecting an ESP, inquire about their data reporting capabilities, specifically asking for access to raw logs and detailed SMTP responses. This is critical for thorough troubleshooting.
• Evaluate technical flexibility: Assess an ESP's flexibility regarding authentication (SPF, DKIM, DMARC) setup. Ideally, they should support various configurations, not just their proprietary CNAME systems. Find out how to evaluate an ESP for deliverability.
• Understand IP management: If using shared IPs, understand the ESP's strategy for maintaining the reputation of those IPs and mitigating risks from other senders. For dedicated IPs, clarify your own responsibilities for deliverability on dedicated IPs.
• Invest in external monitoring: Supplement ESP reporting with independent tools for blocklist monitoring, DMARC reporting, and inbox placement testing. This provides an unbiased view of your email performance.
• Seek expert consultation: For complex deliverability issues or strategic guidance, consider consulting independent deliverability experts who can offer unbiased advice and advanced troubleshooting techniques.

Key findings

• Emphasis on authentication: Documentation consistently stresses the importance of proper email authentication (SPF, DKIM, DMARC) for deliverability, but ESPs' proprietary implementation methods can complicate this for users.
• Recipient server responses: RFCs define various SMTP response codes for delivery failures, yet ESP interfaces often aggregate these into simplified 'bounce' categories, losing critical diagnostic information.
• Sender reputation guidelines: Industry best practices document the factors influencing sender reputation, but ESPs typically offer limited visibility into how they actively manage or protect their sending infrastructure's reputation for shared users.
• Compliance requirements: Documentation highlights the need for explicit consent and easy unsubscribe mechanisms to avoid spam complaints, yet ESPs sometimes allow practices that can contribute to these issues.
• Warmup protocols: Technical guides detail proper IP and domain warmup procedures, but ESPs may not provide sufficiently granular tools or clear guidance to ensure clients follow these protocols effectively.

Key considerations

• Review ESP documentation thoroughly: Before committing to an ESP, carefully review their technical documentation for details on their deliverability services, data access, and supported authentication methods. Look for transparent policies regarding essential ESP capabilities.
• Understand DMARC reporting: While ESPs handle sending, DMARC reports provide an independent view of authentication failures and potential issues. Familiarize yourself with DMARC reports from major mailbox providers.
• Query IP management practices: Ask your ESP how they manage their IP pools and address issues like IP blocklisting, particularly if you are on a shared IP plan.
• Implement external monitoring: Relying solely on ESP-provided metrics can be misleading. Employ third-party tools to independently verify inbox placement, authentication status, and sender reputation.
• Educate your team on RFCs: For technical teams, understanding core email RFCs (e.g., for SMTP, bounces) can help them interpret raw data more effectively and challenge superficial ESP reporting.