Mandrill changes

Last week Mandrill announced that they were discontinuing their free services and all customers would be required to have a corresponding paid Mailchimp account.

Going forward, all Mandrill users will be required to have a paid monthly MailChimp account and verify ownership of all sending domains. Important changes to Mandrill

mc-logo-2380f23aOn March 16th all new Mandrill users will be required to create a Mailchimp account and existing Mandrill users will be able to merge their Mandrill and Mailchimp accounts. All users will have to merge accounts by April 27th.

When I saw the announcement I didn’t think it was that big a deal. Mandrill, for better or worse, has been a source of spam for a while and I knew that Mailchimp would be taking some action to clean it up. To me, this change seems really all about being able to hold customers accountable. Mandrill users will need to have real contact information, be able to verify their domains and have a valid credit card. This is a step that was, at least to me, obvious.
sparkpostWhat I wasn’t expecting was the number of companies who think this is a dumb idea and that Mandrill is giving up valuable customers. I have no doubt that Mailchimp knows exactly which customers are going to walk and has a good handle on how much revenue this will cost them. Personally, I don’t think it’s actually that much revenue. To me, the majority of companies who will be walking away are those who can’t or won’t pay $10 a month for a Mailchimp account.
I suppose there are going to be customers who are already paying and who are going to walk just because they don’t want to be restricted to having to have a real account. Or customers who don’t want to (or can’t) pass Mailchimp’s anti-fraud protections. Or customers who’ve been terminated from MC but snuck back as a Mandrill customer. These customers, to me, feel like way more trouble than they’re worth.
My viewpoints aren’t shared by a lot of other companies in the industry. The good folks over at Sparkpost, have jumped at the opportunity to provide services for companies leaving Mandrill. They’re even offering to honor Mandrill’s pricing for companies migrating. I know Sparkpost has a great team of compliance and abuse desk folks, and I hope they have thought ahead to how they’re going to deal with problems that come with freemium services. Only time will really tell if it’s enough, though.
 
 
 
 
 

Ask Laura: Will our ESP kick us off for mailing purchasers?
Laura's Speaking Events early 2016

Related Posts

Services, abuse and bears

A couple weeks ago I wrote a post about handling abuse complaints. As a bit of a throwaway I mentioned that new companies don’t always think about how their service can be abused before releasing it on the unsuspecting internet.
Today’s blog post by Margot Romary at the Return Path In the Know blog reminds me that it’s not always new companies that don’t think about abuse potential before launching services.

Read More

Who pays for spam?

A couple weeks ago, I published a blog post about monetizing the complaint stream. The premise was that ESPs could offer lower base rates for sending if the customer agreed to pay per complaint. The idea came to me while talking with a deliverability expert at a major ESP. One of their potential customer wanted the ESP to allow them to mail purchased lists. The customer even offered to indemnify the ESP and assume all legal risk for mailing purchased lists.
While on the surface this may seem like a generous offer, there aren’t many legal liabilities associated with sending email. Follow a few basic rules that most of us learn in Kindergarten (say your name, stop poking when asked, don’t lie) and there’s no chance you’ll be legally liable for your actions.
Legal liability is not really the concern for most ESPs. The bigger issues for ESPs including overall sending reputation and cost associated with resolving a block. The idea behind monetizing the complaint stream was making the customer bear some of the risk for bad sends. ESP customers do a lot of bad things, up to and including spamming, without having any financial consequences for the behavior. By sharing  in the non-legal consequences of spamming, the customer may feel some of the effect of their bad decisions.
Right now, ESPs really protect customers from consequences. The ESP pays for the compliance team. The ESP handles negotiations with ISPs and filtering companies. The cost of this is partially built into the sending pricing, but if there is a big problem, the ESP ends up shouldering the bulk of the resolution costs. In some cases, the ESP even loses revenue as they disconnect the sender.
ESPs hide the cost of bad decisions from customers and do not incentivize customers to make good decisions. Maybe if they started making customers shoulder some of the financial liability for spamming there’d be less spamming.

Read More

Spamming ESPs: the followup

Campaign Monitor contacted me about yesterday’s post. The phrasing I picked out of the spammers AUP matched their AUP quite closely. In fact, if you plug the AUP into Google, Campaign Monitor comes up as one of the first hits.
It was not Campaign Monitor I was talking about. In fact, the ESP I received the mail from is not on the first 8 pages of Google hits for the phrases I posted.
A similar thing happened when I posted about Dell spamming me. Dell has multiple ESPs, and one of their ESPs contacted me directly in case they were the ones Dell was spamming through. It was no surprise to me that they weren’t the ESP involved.
This is what good ESPs do. Good ESPs monitor their reputation and monitor what people are saying about them. Good ESPs notice when people claim they’re being spammed and effectively reach out to the complainers so they can investigate the claim.
Good ESPs don’t just rely on the complaint numbers to take action. They keep an eye out on social networks to see who might be receiving mail they never asked for.

Read More