Why is Validity charging for Universal Feedback Loop (UFL) ARF reports, and what are the costs?

Validity's decision to charge for Universal Feedback Loop (UFL) ARF reports is primarily driven by the need to offset the operational costs associated with providing and maintaining the service. While a free, aggregated version of the UFL will remain available, accessing individual ARF reports will now require a fee of $1,500 USD annually for up to 100,000 complaints. This change has sparked mixed reactions within the email marketing community. Some express concerns about the lack of viable alternatives and the potential for Validity to leverage its market dominance. The communication surrounding these changes has been criticized for its confusing and inconsistent nature. The introduction of fees could incentivize improved list hygiene among senders, but the associated costs may pose a significant barrier, particularly for smaller senders. Independent FBL programs offered by Microsoft (JMRP) and Yahoo (CFL) remain unaffected by Validity's changes.

Key findings

• Reason for Charge: Validity is charging for ARF reports to offset the operational costs associated with providing and maintaining the UFL service.
• Free vs. Paid: A free, aggregated version of the UFL service will remain, while individual ARF reports will require a paid subscription.
• Pricing: Access to ARF reports costs $1,500 USD annually for up to 100,000 complaints.
• Limited Alternatives: Concerns exist regarding the lack of alternative FBL services, potentially forcing senders to rely on Validity's UFL.
• Market Power: Some perceive Validity as leveraging its market dominance to monetize a previously free service.
• Independent FBLs: Microsoft (JMRP) and Yahoo (CFL) offer separate FBL programs unaffected by Validity's UFL changes.

Key considerations

• Communication: The initial communication about the changes was confusing and inconsistent.
• List Hygiene: The introduction of fees could incentivize senders to improve list hygiene.
• Smaller Senders: The cost of ARF reports may disproportionately impact smaller senders.
• Incentives: The lack of transparent pricing means providers will need to think about budgeting.

Validity's decision to charge for Universal Feedback Loop (UFL) ARF reports stems from a need to offset operational costs, although an aggregated, free version of the FBL service will remain available. The move has been met with mixed reactions, with some expressing concern over the lack of alternatives and the potential impact on smaller senders. Access to ARF reports will require a nominal fee, not an upgrade to Everest, and will cost $1,500 USD annually for up to 100,000 complaints. Concerns exist about the clarity of communication, the timing of the change, and Validity leveraging its market dominance.

Key opinions

• Reason for Charge: Validity is implementing fees to cover operating costs associated with providing ARF reports via the Universal Feedback Loop (UFL).
• Free Version: An aggregated, free version of the UFL service will remain available, offering complaint trends categorized by provider.
• ARF Cost: Access to individual ARF reports will cost $1,500 USD annually for up to 100,000 complaints, without requiring an Everest upgrade.
• Lack of Alternatives: Some express concern over the limited availability of alternative FBL services, potentially forcing senders to pay for Validity's UFL.
• Market Dominance: Validity is perceived by some as leveraging its market dominance to monetize a service previously offered for free.

Key considerations

• Communication Clarity: The initial communication about the changes was confusing, with different messages being sent to different users.
• Budget Impact: The timing of the fee implementation, near the end of the budget year, may present challenges for some organizations.
• Impact on Smaller Senders: The cost of ARF reports may disproportionately affect smaller senders who may struggle to afford the service.
• Mailbox Provider Burden: If senders are unwilling to pay for the FBL, mailbox providers may have to deal customers complaints, leading to a decline in email deliverability for everyone.

Validity's decision to start charging for Universal Feedback Loop (UFL) ARF reports is primarily to offset the operational costs of maintaining the service. The communication around this change has been confusing. The introduction of fees could encourage improved list hygiene, though the cost may be a barrier for smaller senders. It's important to remember that Microsoft and Yahoo offer separate FBLs (JMRP and CFL) that are not affected by this change.

Key opinions

• Reason for Charging: Validity is charging for ARF reports to cover the operational costs of providing and maintaining the UFL service.
• Communication Issues: The messaging about the UFL changes was confusing and inconsistent, with different users receiving different information.
• Impact on List Hygiene: Introducing fees for FBLs could potentially incentivize senders to improve list hygiene and sending practices.
• Alternative FBLs: Microsoft and Yahoo operate their own FBL programs (JMRP and CFL) independently of Validity's UFL.

Key considerations

• Cost Barrier: The cost of FBL access may pose a significant barrier for smaller senders, potentially impacting their ability to maintain good deliverability.
• Validity Management: Management of this change seems poor with little notice

Validity is introducing charges for its Universal Feedback Loop (UFL) ARF reports, but will continue to offer an aggregated FBL service for free. Microsoft and Yahoo operate separate FBL programs (JMRP and CFL), independent from Validity's UFL.

Key findings

• Free Aggregated FBL: Validity will maintain a free, aggregated version of its FBL service.
• Separate FBL Programs: Microsoft (JMRP) and Yahoo (CFL) have independent FBL programs, separate from Validity's UFL.

Key considerations