Skip to content

What's inside the newsletter from Niche Beauty

Sender
noreply@n.niche-beauty.com
Sending platform
SAP Emarsys
Sector
Beauty
Emails read
30 campaigns, 2 transactional
Period
August – October 2026

Our address was subscribed in August 2026, after the CNIL recommendation was published (April 14, 2026).

Overall score

The main finding

An open-tracking pixel is present on the last 3 campaigns.

It is the first of 10 points to fix. The highest score is deliverability (100/100), the lowest compliance (38/100), better than 43% of the 503 brands measured.

One email when a criterion changes state: the Pro version, in early access.

PDF
Share

Share this report

A single message, written by us. Their address is used for this message only and is not added to any list.

10 points to fix

Each line leads to the criterion in its family, with the excerpt that establishes it and how to fix it.

  1. Priority An open-tracking pixel is present Criterion “No open-tracking pixel” Compliance on the last 3 campaigns −30 pts out of 30
    <img src="https://link.n.niche-beauty.com/mo/***.gif" height="2" width="2" bord…

    Open tracking is turned off in the tracking settings, at the campaign or account level.

  2. Priority No separate path to refuse tracking Criterion “The recipient keeps control over tracking” Compliance measured on 29 campaigns −20 pts out of 20

    A path separate from the unsubscribe link leads to a preference centre where the recipient can refuse tracking (opens, clicks) without unsubscribing.

  3. Priority Layout tables nested beyond the threshold Criterion “A shallow template” Technical measured on 29 campaigns −20 pts out of 20

    Flatten the template: one content block per table, placed directly in the main column, with no wrapper table around each section.

  4. To review The message puts obstacles in the way of assistive technology Criterion “The message stays readable with assistive technology” Experience measured on 29 campaigns −17.9 pts out of 20
  5. To review Some tap targets are too small for a finger Criterion “Tap targets large enough” Experience on all 29 campaigns −10 pts out of 10
  6. Secondary Some links become invisible when images are blocked Criterion “All links stay visible with images blocked” Experience on 16 of the 29 campaigns −8.3 pts out of 15
  7. Secondary No unsubscribe link in the body Criterion “Unsubscribing is possible and announced” Compliance measured on 29 campaigns −7.5 pts out of 15
  8. Secondary No address allows a reply to the message Criterion “The message says who is writing and under which rules” Compliance measured on 29 campaigns −5 pts out of 15
  9. Secondary The HTML exceeds Gmail's clipping threshold Criterion “HTML under Gmail's clipping threshold” Technical on 1 of the 29 campaigns −0.9 pts out of 25
  10. Secondary Some links lead nowhere Criterion “Every link leads somewhere” Technical on 1 of the 29 campaigns −0.3 pts out of 10

14 criteria met, including « An untracked path leads to the site » and « DKIM signature validated ». They are listed in their family, below.

Every send, at the time it arrived

One dot per message received by our subscription since August. Tap a dot to open it; the arrows move from one send to the next.

Technical reading of the send of Oct. 23, 2026 →

campaigns in 11 weeks
30
about 2.7 a week, from August to October
every day of the week
7 days a week
2 to 9 campaigns depending on the day
favourite sending hour
6 h
50% of campaigns arrive between 6:00 and 7:00
last send received
24 Oct.
« 20% KORTING: Onze verjaardag, jouw feestje »
Pixel
Score
66 70 66 70 66 70 66 66

Campaign 30 of 30

Saturday 24 Oct., 5:59

20% KORTING: Onze verjaardag, jouw feestje

Type
Marketing campaign
Score
analysis in progress
Pixel
—

Sending day

  1. Mon.
  2. Tue.
  3. Wed.
  4. Thu.
  5. Fri.
  6. Sat.
  7. Sun.

Arrival time

6 changes observed since August

Each campaign is compared with the previous one, criterion by criterion.

4 Sept.

The detail of this change, criterion by criterion, is reserved for the Pro version.

confirmed by the next campaign · the per-send score goes from 66 to 70

11 Sept.

The detail of this change, criterion by criterion, is reserved for the Pro version.

confirmed by the next campaign · the per-send score goes from 70 to 66

13 Sept.

The detail of this change, criterion by criterion, is reserved for the Pro version.

confirmed by the next 3 campaigns · the per-send score goes from 66 to 70

8 Oct.

The detail of this change, criterion by criterion, is reserved for the Pro version.

confirmed by the next 3 campaigns · the per-send score goes from 70 to 66

16 Oct.

The detail of this change, criterion by criterion, is reserved for the Pro version.

confirmed by the next campaign · the per-send score goes from 66 to 70

18 Oct.

The detail of this change, criterion by criterion, is reserved for the Pro version.

confirmed by the next campaign · the per-send score goes from 70 to 66

See what changed, before and after Version Pro

Criteria in detail

The 24 criteria + 1 bonus

Met The criterion is verified on every email where it applied. Counts for its full weight in the score. Partly met The criterion is verified on only some of the emails; the detail says which. Counts in proportion to the emails where it is met. Not met The criterion is verified on none of the emails where it applied. Counts as zero, and its weight stays in the denominator. Not observable Nothing in the emails received allows a conclusion: the criterion leaves the denominator and is never counted as a failure. Leaves the denominator: listed, never counted as a failure.

Compliance

These checks cover what the send imposes on the recipient and what it leaves them: measurement of their behaviour, ways to leave, tracking of their objection.

Tracking pixels: the CNIL rule Method, Compliance family better than 43% of the 503 brands measured

The calculation · 38 pts out of 100

2 met · 2 partly met · 2 not met

30 15 20 15 10 10

Weight of each criterion in the score.

No open-tracking pixel Not met Open-tracking pixel detected on the last 3 campaigns 0/30 pts

0 points out of 30 — met on 0 of the last 3 campaigns.

An invisible image tells the sending platform that the message was opened, when, and from which device: this is individual tracking of reading behavior, and the recipient sees none of it. The message does not say whether they consented or objected — that choice lives in the sending platform, not in the email.

Served from niche-beauty.com.

The excerpt that establishes it

<img src="https://link.n.niche-beauty.com/mo/***.gif" height="2" width="2" border="0" alt="" aria-hidden="true">

How to fix it

Open tracking is turned off in the tracking settings, at the campaign or account level. Look for “open tracking”.

Turning it off loses the open rate — a measure already largely distorted by mailbox privacy protections, which preload images — and changes nothing about the click rate.

Met when no tracking pixel is present. A single pixel is enough for the criterion not to be met on an email.

Unsubscribing is possible and announced Partly met No unsubscribe link in the body on the 29 campaigns concerned (1 of 2 measures met) 7.5/15 pts

7.5 points out of 15 — share of observations met across 29 campaigns.

How to fix it

The unsubscribe link goes in the body of the message, visible without excessive scrolling, and the List-Unsubscribe header is set in the sending settings of your email platform (“unsubscribe header”, “List-Unsubscribe header”). Most platforms add it by default; when it is missing, a transactional template or a direct SMTP send has dropped it.

An unsubscribe link does not increase unsubscribes: it replaces spam complaints, which weigh far more on the sender's reputation.

Met when the message announces unsubscribing in its headers, through a page rather than an email to write, and in its body. The detail says which of the two is missing. Not applicable to a transactional email.

What was measured — 1 met out of 2

  • Unsubscribe announced in the header, through a page on 29 campaigns Met
  • No unsubscribe link in the body on the 29 campaigns concerned Not met
The recipient keeps control over tracking Not met No separate path to refuse tracking on the 29 campaigns concerned (0 of 1 measures met) 0/20 pts

0 points out of 20 — share of observations met across 29 campaigns.

How to fix it

A path separate from the unsubscribe link leads to a preference centre where the recipient can refuse tracking (opens, clicks) without unsubscribing. Most email platforms offer this page; otherwise it goes in the template footer, with its own link, named for what it does (“manage my preferences”, “refuse tracking”).

The page takes an afternoon to set up and then serves every send. It is what the CNIL recommendation expects from an email that measures how its readers behave.

Two measures: does the unsubscribe link go through a tracker, and does a separate path lead to a preference center or to refusing tracking? Neither establishes that a refusal succeeds — checking would require following the link, which would record a click on the sending platform's side. They describe the control left to the recipient, not the result they would get.

What was measured — 0 met out of 1

  • Untracked unsubscribe link — no emails concerned Not observable
  • No separate path to refuse tracking on the 29 campaigns concerned Not met
  • CNIL 14/04/2026 · Postmetry
  • PM-PRIV-003
The message says who is writing and under which rules Partly met No address allows a reply to the message on the 29 campaigns concerned (2 of 3 measures met) 10/15 pts

10 points out of 15 — share of observations met across 29 campaigns.

How to fix it

The footer of the message names the sender (company name, postal address) and links to its privacy policy with a direct link to the website, not through a tracking domain. These details go once into the base template and then appear in every send.

Nothing to lose: these lines already exist on the website; they only need to be carried over.

A commercial email must make it possible to identify the advertiser (CPCE, article L. 34-5), and the recipient must be able to know who processes their data. This indicator groups what a message can show of it.

What was measured — 2 met out of 3

  • The message names its sender on 29 campaigns Met
  • No address allows a reply to the message on the 29 campaigns concerned Not met
  • A link leads to the privacy policy on 29 campaigns Met
  • CPCE L. 34-5 · directive 2000/31 art. 6 · CAN-SPAM
  • PM-PRIV-004
An untracked path leads to the site Met An untracked path leads to the site on 29 campaigns 10 pts

10 points out of 10 — met on 29 of 29 campaigns concerned.

Met when at least one link in the message leads to the brand's site without going through a click counter.

  • Postmetry
  • PM-PRIV-005
No recipient identifier in the message Met No recipient identifier in the message on 29 campaigns 10 pts

10 points out of 10 — met on 29 of 29 campaigns concerned.

Met when the recipient's address appears — neither in clear, nor encoded, nor hashed — in no URL and no proprietary header. Addressing headers do not count: they carry it by design.

  • Postmetry · RGPD art. 4 en repère
  • PM-PRIV-020

Deliverability

These checks read the authentication verdict set by our server when the message arrived. This verdict is dated by construction: we never recalculate it, which would query today's DNS rather than the DNS of the day the email was sent.

The calculation · 85 pts out of 85, scaled to 100

6 met

20 20 15 10 15 5

Weight of each criterion in the score.

DKIM signature validated Met Valid DKIM signature on 29 campaigns 20 pts

20 points out of 20 — met on 29 of 29 campaigns concerned.

Met when our receiving server validated the DKIM signature of the email.

DMARC alignment validated Met DMARC alignment verified on 29 campaigns 20 pts

20 points out of 20 — met on 29 of 29 campaigns concerned.

Met when the domain shown in the sender matches the one that authenticated the message.

DMARC policy that helps keep out some impersonation Met Active DMARC policy on 29 campaigns 15 pts

15 points out of 15 — met on 29 of 29 campaigns concerned.

Met when the published policy is “reject” or “quarantine”. A “none” policy asks nothing of mail providers: it is published with no effect on messages that impersonate the domain.

No SPF failure Met No SPF failure on 29 campaigns 10 pts

10 points out of 10 — met on 29 of 29 campaigns concerned.

Met when SPF does not fail. An SPF “none” alongside a valid DKIM and DMARC is a common and legitimate configuration: it is not penalized.

One-click unsubscribe, as defined by RFC 8058 Met One-click unsubscribe as defined by RFC 8058 on 29 campaigns 15 pts

15 points out of 15 — share of observations met across 29 campaigns.

Met when the “List-Unsubscribe” header carries an https address and “List-Unsubscribe-Post” is exactly “List-Unsubscribe=One-Click”. This is what Gmail and Yahoo require of bulk senders: the mailbox's button then acts without opening a page. Not applicable to a transactional email.

What was measured — 2 met out of 2

  • The unsubscribe header carries an https address on 29 campaigns Met
  • One-click unsubscribe announced on 29 campaigns Met
  • RFC 8058 · Gmail et Yahoo
  • PM-DELIV-005
A DKIM signature that covers what matters Met The DKIM signature covers what matters in the message on 29 campaigns 5 pts

5 points out of 5 — share of observations met across 29 campaigns.

What the signature covers, not only that it passes: an algorithm accepted by RFC 8301, the whole body signed, the From, Subject, Date and List-Unsubscribe headers signed, a signature not expired on receipt. Not applicable without a DKIM signature.

What was measured — 3 met out of 3

  • Accepted signing algorithm on 29 campaigns Met
  • Whole body signed on 29 campaigns Met
  • Essential headers signed on 29 campaigns Met
  • Signature valid on receipt Not applicable
  • RFC 6376 · RFC 8301
  • PM-DELIV-006

Technical

These checks cover what email clients actually do with the message: truncation, style blocks removed, resources never loaded. Each threshold states where it comes from: the documented behaviour of an email client, a specification, or our own method.

Support by email client (caniemail) Method, Technical family better than 47% of the 503 brands measured

The calculation · 64 pts out of 85, scaled to 100

3 met · 2 partly met · 1 not met

25 20 15 10 10 5

Weight of each criterion in the score.

HTML under Gmail's clipping threshold Partly met HTML over Gmail's clipping threshold (1 of 29 campaigns concerned) 24.1/25 pts

24.1 points out of 25 — met on 28 of 29 campaigns concerned.

How to fix it

Weight comes down by removing unused CSS, deleting duplicated hidden blocks (mobile and desktop versions of the same content), removing comments and Outlook conditional code that is no longer needed, and embedding no base64 images. Most editors show the HTML weight before sending.

Above 102 KB, Gmail clips the message and shows “View entire message”: the footer, the legal notices and the unsubscribe link drop out of the first read.

Met when the HTML part stays under 102 KB. Beyond that, Gmail cuts off the end of the message — and the end is where the unsubscribe link and the notices are.

  • Gmail
  • PM-TECH-001
A shallow template Not met Layout tables nested beyond the threshold on the 29 campaigns concerned (0 of 1 measures met) 0/20 pts

0 points out of 20 — share of observations met across 29 campaigns.

How to fix it

Flatten the template: one content block per table, placed directly in the main column, with no wrapper table around each section.

In a block-based editor, nesting usually comes from a section placed inside another, or a column inside a column. It is fixed once, in the template, not campaign by campaign.

The technical reading of the email gives the measured nesting and its threshold: it tells you when the fix has taken effect.

Met when layout tables are nested no more than 6 levels deep. Beyond that, the Word engine shared by desktop Outlook and the diverging clients each render the template their own way.

What was measured — 0 met out of 1

  • Layout tables nested beyond the threshold on the 29 campaigns concerned Not met
  • Postmetry
  • PM-TECH-002
Well-formed HTML Met Well-formed HTML on 29 campaigns 15 pts

15 points out of 15 — share of observations met across 29 campaigns.

A doctype, a character set declared in the document, balanced tags and unique identifiers. Each client repairs incomplete markup its own way, which is what makes rendering unpredictable. End tags that HTML makes optional do not count.

What was measured — 4 met out of 4

  • Doctype declared on 29 campaigns Met
  • Character set declared in the HTML on 29 campaigns Met
  • Balanced tags on 29 campaigns Met
  • Unique identifiers on 29 campaigns Met
  • WHATWG
  • PM-TECH-030
Every link leads somewhere Partly met Some links lead nowhere (1 of 29 campaigns concerned) 9.7/10 pts

9.7 points out of 10 — met on 28 of 29 campaigns concerned.

How to fix it

Every link has an absolute https target; no href="#", no href="", no relative link and no mailto: without an address. Empty links most often come from a block copied from an earlier template, or from a button whose URL was never filled in in the editor.

An empty link loses the click and signals a message put together in a hurry; the fix is a review of the link list before sending, which most editors offer.

Met when no link is empty, reduced to “#” or written as “javascript:”. Such a link leads nowhere, and most clients neutralise it. Not applicable if the message contains no link.

  • Postmetry
  • PM-TECH-031
No remote stylesheet Met No remote stylesheet on 29 campaigns 10 pts

10 points out of 10 — met on 29 of 29 campaigns concerned.

Met when the message calls no external stylesheet, through “link” or “@import”. Several clients never load them. A font stylesheet does not count: without it, the text falls back to another font.

The message follows the shape of an email Met The message follows the shape of an email on 29 campaigns 5 pts

5 points out of 5 — share of observations met across 29 campaigns.

Lines of 998 bytes at most, readable Message-ID and Date, a character set announced on every text part, a transfer encoding consistent with the content (RFC 5322, RFC 2045). Most servers tolerate these deviations, each in its own way.

What was measured — 5 met out of 5

  • Lines of 998 bytes at most on 29 campaigns Met
  • Well-formed Message-ID on 29 campaigns Met
  • Readable date on 29 campaigns Met
  • Character set announced on every text part on 29 campaigns Met
  • Consistent transfer encoding on 29 campaigns Met
  • RFC 5322 · RFC 2045
  • PM-TECH-010

Experience

Four questions about what becomes of the message once received: does it stay understandable, can the recipient still act, can a client render it, can a screen display it. Automatic detection only covers what is declared in the message.

WCAG 2.2 Method, Experience family better than 55% of the 503 brands measured

The calculation · 64 pts out of 100

3 met · 2 partly met · 1 not met · 1 bonus

25 15 15 10 20 15

Weight of each criterion in the score.

The message makes sense without its images, from the inbox on Met The message reads without its images and announces itself in the inbox on 29 campaigns 25 pts

25 points out of 25 — share of observations met across 29 campaigns.

Met when the message keeps at least 200 readable characters with images blocked, and a preheader of 40 to 130 characters announces it in the message list. Without a preheader, the inbox shows the first text of the body instead — often “View in browser”.

What was measured — 2 met out of 2

  • At least 200 characters remain readable with images blocked on 29 campaigns Met
  • Preheader of 40 to 130 characters on 29 campaigns Met
  • Postmetry
  • PM-EXP-001
The message can be rendered outside HTML Met A text version renders the message on 29 campaigns 15 pts

15 points out of 15 — share of observations met across 29 campaigns.

Met when a text version comes with the email and carries the essentials: at least 60% of its text and 80% of its links. A client that does not display HTML falls back on it; reduced to “view the web version”, it renders nothing.

What was measured — 3 met out of 3

  • A plain-text version accompanies the message on 29 campaigns Met
  • The text version carries at least 60% of the text on 29 campaigns Met
  • The text version carries at least 80% of the links on 29 campaigns Met
  • Postmetry
  • PM-EXP-002
All links stay visible with images blocked Partly met Some links become invisible with images blocked (16 of 29 campaigns concerned) 6.7/15 pts

6.7 points out of 15 — met on 13 of 29 campaigns concerned.

How to fix it

Every important action (main button, unsubscribe) exists as text or as an HTML button, not only as a clickable image. For an image button, an alt that names the action and a background colour on the cell keep the area visible even without the image.

With images blocked, an image button becomes an empty rectangle: the reader does not know where to click.

Met when no link is carried by a single image without alternative text: such a link leaves nothing on screen. Not applicable if the message contains no links.

  • Postmetry
  • PM-EXP-003
Tap targets large enough Not met Tap targets under the retained size on the 29 campaigns concerned 0/10 pts

0 points out of 10 — met on 0 of 29 campaigns concerned.

How to fix it

Links and buttons are at least 24 px tall, with space between two neighbouring links; an HTML button (a table cell with background and padding) reaches that size without an image. Small footer links are separated by a line break rather than by a |.

On a phone, a target smaller than a finger gets missed or the tap lands next to it; 24 px is the WCAG 2.2 level AA minimum.

Met when no sized tap target falls below 24 px a side (WCAG 2.2, criterion 2.5.8). Only targets with a declared dimension are measured; the criterion's exceptions — a target within a line of text, sufficient spacing — are not. Not applicable if the message declares no dimensions.

The message stays readable with assistive technology Partly met The message puts obstacles in the way of assistive technology — none of the 4 measures is met across all 29 campaigns 2.1/20 pts

2.1 points out of 20 — share of observations met across 29 campaigns.

How to fix it

Four fixes, all in the template: declare the message language on the <html> tag (lang="en" for an email in English), describe each content image in its alt attribute, mark layout tables with role="presentation", and write links that say where they lead rather than “click here”.

The criterion detail shows which ones are missing from your emails; the others are already met.

A decorative image — divider, spacer — keeps an empty alt="": that is what keeps it silent, not an oversight.

Declared language, described content images, layout tables marked as such, link texts that say where they lead: what a screen reader needs to render the message. The detail says which of these measures is missing.

What was measured — 0 met out of 4

  • Message language not declared on the 29 campaigns concerned Not met
  • Some content images are not described (17 of 29 campaigns concerned) Partly met
  • Layout tables announced as data tables on the 29 campaigns concerned Not met
  • Some links do not say where they lead on the 29 campaigns concerned Not met
The message declares its adaptation to screens Met The message declares its adaptation to screens on 29 campaigns 15 pts

15 points out of 15 — share of observations met across 29 campaigns.

Met when the message declares its viewport and its adaptation to screen width. Without them, it displays on a phone at its original width, and is read by zooming and scrolling sideways.

What was measured — 2 met out of 2

  • Viewport declared on 29 campaigns Met
  • Adaptation to screen width declared on 29 campaigns Met
Dark mode declared Bonus point not earned The message does not declare its support for dark mode on the 29 campaigns concerned +0 pts

0 points out of 5 — met on 0 of 29 campaigns concerned.

Earned when the message declares color-scheme or a prefers-color-scheme rule. No standard requires it — clients that force dark mode invert the colors themselves — but declaring it leaves control to the template rather than to the mail client.

  • caniemail
  • PM-EXP-027

Sector comparison

Beauty — 69 brands with at least one campaign analyzed. The shares below are counted on them, never on the catalog.

Reading notes

How to read this page

  1. A criterion that is not observable or not applicable leaves the calculation. It stays listed, never counted as zero: its weight leaves the denominator rather than weighing as a failure.

  2. Each line describes an observable finding, with the excerpt that establishes it. No legal qualification is ever attached to it.

  3. The measurements come from deterministic analyzers: the same message always gives the same result, and a disputed finding can be redone identically from the archive.

  4. Every share is published on an observed basis, and names it: “26 of 30 brands analyzed.” A brand with no email received enters no denominator.

  5. The deliverability score is borrowed: its verdict comes from the server that received the message. All the other families come from our own analyzers.

Does this analysis speak to you?

Let's go through it together, in 20 minutes.

We go over the 10 points with you, the evidence for each and the order in which to fix them. By video call, no commitment.

Pick a time slot Cal.com calendar

Or take it with you: the PDF report

Is this analysis useful to you?

One click, and you help us make it better.