What you pay for when your deliverable is sourced rows

Why would unverifiable rows put you off paying at all? Because a client who cannot trace a contact back to a source will not send you the next brief. Your money here buys mailboxes you sign into and configure, and the verification work that keeps a row defensible stays with you and your own records.

Priced in three lifetime tiers by mailbox count, the service gives you standard SMTP and IMAP mailboxes plus browser webmail for whoever needs to log in quickly. Warm-up and authentication checks sit alongside setup. That is the shape of the purchase: sending capacity and the preparation around it, not rows of research.

Budget conversations change when a contractor separates the two costs. One figure covers the mailbox tier from the publisher's table; the other covers the research hours you spend building and checking each list. Clients pay for sourced rows, so quote the second part honestly and let the tier stay a fixed overhead rather than a variable one.

Starter, with five mailboxes, suits a contractor running a small number of client campaigns at once. Each mailbox gets standard SMTP and IMAP access and browser webmail, so you can configure a client's sending identity, test it, and hand it over with warm-up and authentication checks already run against it.

Studio lifts the count to fifteen mailboxes. That is where a contractor juggling several client accounts at once starts to separate them properly, keeping one set of sending identities per client rather than sharing an address across briefs. The tier changes the count and nothing else; every mailbox carries the same SMTP, IMAP and webmail access.

Floor raises the count again to fifty mailboxes, which fits an operation where a single client brief needs many sending identities or where you run parallel campaigns for a roster of accounts. The rule holds at every tier: you are paying for mailboxes, and the addresses you write to still come from your own research.

Can you honestly tell a client that every row came from a source if the tool that sent it also supplied the data? With this service the question does not arise, because the tiers contain no recipients at all. The mailboxes send, they do not populate. Your sourcing notes, collection method and checks stay outside the purchase.

That separation is what protects the client relationship. When a contact is disputed, you point to where you found it and how you confirmed it, rather than to a vendor who bundled addresses into a plan. The mailbox did its job if the message arrived; the row's defence rests on your own trail.

Read the tiers that way and the price makes sense as a sending cost, not a data cost. Nothing in the purchase promises a place in the inbox, so you should still expect some messages to be filtered even after the checks pass. Plan your pitches around confirmed sources and a measured send, not around a placement promise.

Compare the three tiers against how many client identities you need live at once, not against list size. Five mailboxes cover a contractor with a handful of active briefs. Fifteen fit a roster of clients each needing their own sending address. Fifty suit parallel campaigns where separation between accounts matters more than cost per mailbox.

The second comparison is against your own time. Every mailbox needs configuring, checks running and monitoring, and those hours are part of your delivery cost whether or not a client sees them. A larger tier you never fully configure costs more in attention than a smaller one you use well, so count the mailboxes you will genuinely maintain.

The third is against extras. Anything outside the mailbox count is priced on its own terms, so read the published table before committing and add those figures to your own overheads. Then look at what you hand a client: mailboxes and a traceable source trail, with no promise of inbox placement in the tier itself.