How to fully automate email content QA

The challenge: too many emails, with too many versions

Email is the archetypal 'free' marketing channel. As such it is usually tasked with more tests and more variant churn as brands look to dicsover effective messaging. The content work piles up, which will push content quality assurance processes to their limits.

• A single company might send hundreds of unique emails across onboarding, lifecycle, marketing, support, and product notifications.
• Many of these are triggered automatically, not manually reviewed.
• Even when QA exists, it’s often last-minute spot checking rather than systematic review.

The result is predictable:
Typos slip through. Names are misspelled. Grammar errors persist for months. Broken personalization tokens go unnoticed.

And because emails are constantly edited, cloned, and repurposed, new errors appear faster than teams can manually catch them.

What is the best approach to content QA when emails lives in a few different ESPs?

Email content rarely lives in one place. Most teams send from multiple ESPs and systems, which makes consistent QA harder than it should be. Win-back campaigns might live in one platform, lifecycle emails in another, transactional messages in the product codebase, and marketing sends somewhere else entirely. Each environment has its own editor, templates, review process, and sending workflow—so there’s no single surface where all email content can be checked before it goes out.

This fragmentation creates a predictable QA problem. Review everything manually is just too much surface area.

• Log into multiple platforms
• Trigger test sends from each system
• Read every message individually
• Track feedback across docs, tickets, or chat
• Copy edits back into the correct tool

The solution isn’t adding another review step inside each ESP, it’s making the QA process agnostic to where emails live. Effective email QA should work across all sending platforms without adding complexity, so teams can check content once and trust it everywhere.

Copy-paste process and copy-paste feedback can create more errors.

Manual QA introduces its own mistakes.

A typical process looks like this:

1. Send a test email
2. Copy the content into a doc or Slack thread
3. Add comments and edits
4. Paste fixes back into the ESP
5. Send another test

Every copy-paste cycle is an opportunity to introduce:

• New typos
• Formatting issues
• Missed changes
• Conflicting edits

Ironically, the QA process itself becomes a source of error. And because email edits are often small and iterative, many issues are never fully resolved—they just get “good enough.”

So what is the ideal all-in email content QA solution?

To truly automate email QA, a system needs to:

• Work across all email types
• Require minimal setup
• Catch objective issues, and flag subjective issues
• Return feedback quickly
• Fit into existing workflows and communications ownership

Spell-checkers usually catch typos at the time of writing, but not as contstant edits are being made. ESP previews work for formatting and design decisions, but not content quality. Manual review catches nuance but doesn’t scale.

A useful system needs to combine:

• Automated detection
• Context-aware suggestions
• Fast feedback loops
• Zero-friction usage

Introducing: Spling Email Proofreader

Spling’s Email Proofreader is designed around one principle:
Email QA should be automatic, intuitve and fast.

Spling Email Proofreader is coming soon! Contact us to get early access.

Instead of copying content into a tool, teams simply add their Spling QA email address to their test lists. (It's probably a good idea to also send your final production emails to Spling as well.) From this point, all email content QA is automated:

• Spling analyzes the email content automatically. No pasting, no formatting adjustments, no manual setup.
• Spling uses a combination of dictionaries and grammar logic, including proper nouns and industry jargon. Examples:
  
  • Spelling issues
  • Grammar problems
  • Inconsistent usage
  • Likely typos
  • Suggested corrections
• Results arrive quickly as a structured report with both problem identification and solutions. Teams can review issues and fix them directly in their ESP.