What is the differentiator here? Why would anyone choose this?

Fair question. Here are a few reasons:

- Pricing wins against pretty much any provider (and is an order of magnitude lower than many incumbents). - Especially when compared to SES, we're a dev-friendly, fully modern sending platform and we don't require you to glue a bunch of services together. - We're self funded from previous acquisitions in the space. We're focused on good customer outcomes instead of investor outcomes. - We have a pretty cool templating platform that allows you to write simple markdown instead of convoluted email-compatible HTML.

▲

dbbk 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

A race to the bottom on pricing is just going to get you very low quality customers which in turn will tank your sending reputation. I think you're approaching this backwards.

	▲	dancablam 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		In my experience everyone appreciates lower prices - and good senders should be rewarded with lower prices. If you allow spammers on your network things get a lot more expensive. So you can't offer low prices and allow low-quality senders. That's why we have a strict AUP and aggressive measures to detect spammers, phishers, and non-permission (aka cold-outreach) messages.

▲

heiriddjff a day ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]