At a glance
Percentage of customer emails that bounce. High bounce rates damage sender reputation and reduce marketing reach, a damaged sender reputation is a 3-6 month recovery problem, not a quick fix. The card surfaces the share of email sends that fail to deliver so the merchant can spot list-hygiene issues, ESP integration problems, or a sender-reputation crisis early enough to mitigate.
| What it counts | The percentage of marketing and transactional emails sent to customers that bounced (hard or soft) over the rolling 30-day window. Sourced from the connected ESP (Klaviyo, Mailchimp, Dotdigital, HubSpot) when available; otherwise computed from BC’s outbound transactional email events. |
| Sample type | ESP-side delivery data, refreshed on the standard data refresh. |
| Why bounce rate matters | (1) Sender reputation: mailbox providers (Gmail, Outlook, Yahoo) penalise senders with high bounce rates by routing mail to spam folders or rejecting outright. (2) Deliverability cliff: above 5% bounce, deliverability degrades rapidly; above 10% can trigger ESP suspension. (3) Wasted CRM cost: ESPs bill per recipient including bounced. (4) Deliverability is the hardest performance metric to recover: full recovery from a damaged sender reputation can take 3-6 months of careful, throttled sending. Prevention is cheaper than cure by an order of magnitude. |
| Reading the value | (1) Below 2%: excellent list hygiene. (2) 2-5%: typical baseline; address as part of normal cadence. (3) 5-10%: investigation zone; list cleanup and verification campaign needed. (4) Above 10%: alert state; structural list-quality issue requiring immediate suppression of unverified addresses. (5) Above 20%: severe; ESP suspension risk. (6) Cross-reference unverified_email (cause), email_health (coverage), and the ESP-side bounce cards (klv_bounce_rate, mc_bounce_rate). |
| Currency | percent. |
| Time window | rolling 30 days. |
| Alert trigger | email_bounce_rate > 5 (BAD threshold at 20%). |
| Sentiment key | email_bounce_rate (LOWER_IS_BETTER in SentimentClassifier; GOOD ≤ 5%, BAD ≥ 20%). |
| Roles | owner, marketing, operations |
Calculation
Worked example
A UK-based BigCommerce home-and-garden store, email bounce rate reading on Wednesday 15 May 26.| Metric | Value | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Total emails sent (30D) | 320,000 | - |
| Hard bounces | 5,800 (1.8%) | - |
| Soft bounces | 8,420 (2.6%) | - |
| Email bounce rate | 4.4% | Performing Well |
| Unverified email rate (cross-reference) | 46.6% | Concerning, predicts future bounce rise |
- Current bounce rate is healthy. 4.4% sits below the 5% threshold typical for sender-reputation safety. The store can continue normal sending cadence without imminent deliverability risk.
-
However: the cross-reference signal is worrying. The store has 46.6% unverified emails (
unverified_email). If those unverified addresses were sent to in marketing campaigns, the bounce rate would likely jump to 15-20%, well into damaged-reputation territory. The 4.4% reading suggests the merchant is currently suppressing unverified addresses from marketing sends; this is good operational discipline. -
Decompose the bounce 4.4%:
- 1.8% hard bounces (5,800 addresses): addresses that don’t exist (typos, abandoned mailboxes, deleted accounts). These addresses should be permanently suppressed from future sends.
- 2.6% soft bounces (8,420 events): temporary issues (mailbox full, server unavailable). Some addresses will recover; some won’t. Best practice: 3 consecutive soft bounces → move to suppression list.
-
The list-hygiene action. Even at healthy 4.4%, the merchant should:
- Permanently suppress the 5,800 hard-bouncing addresses in the ESP. Many ESPs do this automatically; verify the setting.
- Set a 3-strike soft-bounce policy to move repeat soft-bouncers to suppression after 3 consecutive bounces.
- Run a list-cleanup tool (Kickbox, ZeroBounce, NeverBounce) on the address list quarterly to catch abandoned mailboxes before they bounce.
- The growth-trap pattern. Bounce rate often stays healthy until the merchant decides to “send to everyone” for a peak-event campaign (BFCM, end-of-season). At that moment, suppressed addresses get included, bounce rate spikes to 15-25%, and sender reputation crashes. Treat the suppression list as sacred, never lift it for short-term volume gain.
-
Recommended response (preventive, not reactive at 4.4%):
- This week: confirm hard-bounced addresses are permanently suppressed.
- This week: configure 3-strike soft-bounce policy in the ESP.
- Month 1: run list-cleanup tool; expect to remove 5-10% of addresses.
- Month 1: run re-verification campaign on the 46.6% unverified to recover deliverable addresses before they’re ever marketed to.
- Quarterly: list-hygiene audit; add to operational calendar.
- Result: bounce rate stays below 3%; sender reputation insulated against future demand spikes.
-
What “alert state” looks like. If next week the bounce rate jumped to 22%:
- Hour 1: pause all non-transactional sends.
- Hour 2: identify the campaign that triggered the spike (typically a “send to all” campaign that included unverified addresses).
- Day 1: re-suppress the affected addresses; do not resume marketing sends until bounce rate drops below 5%.
- Week 1-4: gradual sending volume rampup with engagement-only segments first.
- Month 2-6: monitor for sender-reputation recovery; expect Gmail/Outlook deliverability to lag by months.
- Read bounce rate. Above 5% warrants action; above 20% alert.
- Decompose hard vs soft.
- Suppress hard bounces permanently; apply 3-strike to soft.
- Cross-reference
unverified_emailfor the upstream cause. - Set up quarterly list-cleanup as standing hygiene.
| Time horizon | Action |
|---|---|
| First 1 hour | Read rate. If above 20%, pause non-transactional sends. |
| First day | Suppress hard bounces; apply soft-bounce policy. |
| First week | Run list-cleanup tool. |
| Quarterly | Standing list-hygiene audit. |
Sibling cards merchants should reference together
| Card | Why merchants reach for it |
|---|---|
unverified_email | Upstream cause; unverified addresses bounce. |
email_health | Email coverage (capture rate). |
klv_bounce_rate | Klaviyo-side bounce rate; matches if Klaviyo is the ESP. |
klv_unsubscribe_rate | Unsubscribe rate; another deliverability signal. |
mc_alert_deliverability_drop | Mailchimp-side deliverability alert. |
klv_alert_deliverability_drop | Klaviyo-side deliverability alert. |
Reconciling against the vendor’s own dashboard
Where to look: Klaviyo dashboard → Deliverability metrics; Mailchimp → Reports → Bounce report; Postmark/SendGrid sender dashboards. Why our number may differ:| Reason | Direction | What to do |
|---|---|---|
| Hard vs soft inclusion. ESPs may report only hard bounces in headline; Vortex IQ aggregates both. | Vortex IQ higher | Confirm scope. |
| Time window. ESPs default to single-campaign or 7-day; Vortex IQ uses 30-day rolling. | Variable | Match window. |
| Transactional vs marketing. ESPs often track marketing-only; Vortex IQ may include transactional via BC’s email log. | Variable | Confirm scope. |
klv_bounce_rate, mc_bounce_rate). This card aggregates across BC’s outbound when no ESP is connected.
Quick rule: confirm hard-vs-soft scope and time window first.
Known limitations / merchant FAQs
Q: We’re at 4.4% bounce rate. Should we worry? Not immediately, but be vigilant. 4.4% is right below the 5% threshold; a single peak-volume campaign that includes suppressed addresses can push you over. The cross-reference reading onunverified_email (46.6%) is the bigger concern, if those unverified addresses ever get into marketing sends, bounce rate will spike.
Q: What’s the difference between a hard bounce and a soft bounce?
Hard: permanent failure (address doesn’t exist, domain doesn’t accept mail). Soft: temporary failure (mailbox full, server temporarily down). Treat hard bounces as permanent suppression; treat soft bounces with a 3-strike rule.
Q: How long does sender-reputation damage take to recover?
Typically 3-6 months at major mailbox providers (Gmail, Outlook, Yahoo). Some niche providers may recover faster or slower. Recovery requires throttled sending, engagement-only campaigns, gradual volume rampup, and consistent low bounce rates. Prevention is dramatically cheaper than recovery.
Q: We use a different ESP for transactional vs marketing. How does this card combine them?
Configurable. By default, this card aggregates across all known sending sources to give the merchant-level health view. If you prefer to see them separately, configure per-source visibility in profile settings.
Q: ESPs auto-suppress hard bounces. Why do I need to do anything?
ESP auto-suppression catches the address after the first hard bounce. The bounce itself still counts against your sender reputation. The only way to prevent the bounce is to never send to known-bad addresses in the first place, which means upstream verification at signup and quarterly list cleanup.
Q: We had a 30% bounce rate last month after a “send to everyone” campaign. How do we recover?
Stop all non-transactional sending immediately. Re-segment to engagement-only addresses (opened or clicked in last 30-60 days) and send only to that segment for 30-60 days at reduced volume. Monitor deliverability via inbox-placement tests (250ok, GlockApps). Expect 3-6 months of gradual recovery. Some sender reputation damage may be permanent at certain mailbox providers.
Q: Does using a paid email-verification service prevent bounces?
Mostly. Services like Kickbox, ZeroBounce, NeverBounce catch abandoned and never-existing addresses with 95%+ accuracy. Cost is typically £0.005-£0.01 per verification, much cheaper than a damaged sender reputation. Run quarterly on your full list and on every signup batch above ~1,000.
Q: How does this card compare to klv_bounce_rate?
klv_bounce_rate is Klaviyo-specific (only your Klaviyo sending). This card aggregates across all email sources visible to BC + Vortex IQ. If Klaviyo is your only sender, the two should match.