FPC Program ideas/suggestions

Some of the Disti PDMs have raised concerns over the amount of Data we are exposing to potential competitors and the motion of Share shift.  It has been proposed that if a certain partner doesn't own the majority of the license that we don't expose the data in their feeds. This is potentially more important in the CSP world as customers can purchase licenses form multiple partners. 

Our data today is broken down into individual workloads. This is great for an EA customer that aligns to E3 and E5 license types. In the SMB space the CSP terms for licenses are Business essentials or standard and Business Premium. Some of the advanced workload have add on SKUs to these “hero” SKUs. It would be great if we could map the workload to the license type that aligns with CSP. 

Please increase partner-facing technical enablement sessions—similar to the October Copilot Oversharing Guidance Community Call. Partners struggle to keep up with rapid updates in M365, especially Copilot and Security.   What’s needed More frequent partner-facing calls/webinars with: Latest feature updates and roadmap highlights Deployment/adoption best practices and security guidance   Impact Improves pre-sales confidence Accelerates M365 products adoption Strengthens competitive positioning

Following a Security Compete Partner Insights meeting with Exakis partner, EPS Security GTM  (Petra Korica) and Security Compete Strategy Lead (Ozge Sahin), Exakis partner shared an important feed-back about the lack of Purview for structured data for MCI envisioning.  For Purview focused on Structured Data, it implies databases, data lake, data warehouse or any systems that propose a structured data.Those services in Purview (Data Map, Data Catalog, Data Quality, etc) are not on the same pricing model because they are based on Azure Consumption. Customers want to assess the solution on several topics including Classification, Protection, governance & Compliance for those structured data using those features which are not part of any modules in the current engagement.

Partners face challenges converting EA customers to CSP because EA contracts offer access to programs and funding that CSP cannot match. This creates friction during renewal cycles and slows CSP growth. Recommend publishing clear guidance and value comparison for EA vs CSP, along with potential funding levers to offset gaps. Both BDO and Quisitive have provided this feedback in Q2.  EA to CSP Transition Challenges and Funding Opportunities: Michelle and Josh discussed the complexities of transitioning customers from EA to CSP, including eligibility, funding programs, and the need for compelling business cases to secure Microsoft support, with input from Emily on operational alignment. Recap: BDO:Microsoft - FRP Rhythm of Business Tuesday, October 28 | Meeting | Microsoft Teams 

View from Partner (CloudEdge).The problem lies in the measurement model. If a customer decides not to upgrade to E5, the partner is at risk of being paused.We believe this misses the point: we won’t nominate a customer for a workshop unless we’re certain they’re upgrading to E5, which causes missed opportunities.We have a clear example with a customer named "ISRACARD", with 5,000 users currently on E3. Many products are not deployed, so they’re not eligible for EA Security. Microsoft refuses to make any exceptions. The customer will purchase their licenses under an EA agreement—not through us.As a Security partner, we have no incentive to push them toward E5. The LAR partner cannot demonstrate the value of E5 to the customer. This is a credit card company—they absolutely need E5, and we know how to show them the risks and capabilities involved. That’s our expertise.

Subject: Partners participating in CSU security summits report strong initial engagement but minimal follow-up from Microsoft teams after events. For example, while RCG provided warm intros and weekly cadence, other segments like SLED lacked structured follow-through, leaving partners without clear next steps. Recommend implementing a standardized post-summit engagement model with defined accountability for CSU and account teams.Impact: Improves partner confidence, accelerates usage-driving motions, and ensures summit investments translate into measurable outcomes.Program: CSU Security ProgramRecap: BlueVoyant:Microsoft - FRP ROB/MBR Thursday, October 16 | Meeting | Microsoft Teams

Subject: SLED CSU engagements stalled because Microsoft teams prioritized DPU metrics (e.g., usage days, policy application counts) over initial deployment and adoption. Partners cannot influence these metrics early in the lifecycle, especially when managing environments where customer admins have limited interaction. Recommend revising success criteria to focus on deployment milestones and early adoption signals before deep usage measures.Impact: Reduces friction for partners, accelerates time-to-value for customers, and aligns measurement with realistic partner influence.Program: CSU Security ProgramRecap: BlueVoyant:Microsoft - FRP ROB/MBR Thursday, October 16 | Meeting | Microsoft Teams

Subject: Partners face challenges connecting with customers identified in CSU security initiatives due to limited CSU contact depth. Suggest formalizing a process where FTAs assist with introductions for accounts tied to CSU usage-driving programs. This collaboration would bridge gaps between CSU strategy and field execution, ensuring ESIF-backed offers reach customers effectively.Impact: Enhances customer engagement, drives usage growth, and maximizes ESIF investment ROI.Program: CSU Security ProgramRecap: BlueVoyant:Microsoft - FRP ROB/MBR Thursday, October 16 | Meeting | Microsoft Teams

Subject: Critical Start sellers are hesitant to enter opportunities into MSX due to repeated instances where Microsoft sellers have undercut them with competitive offerings after referrals were submitted. This behavior has created distrust and discouraged pipeline transparency, limiting Microsoft's ability to surface actionable data and justify continued FastTrack program participation. Recommend establishing clearer referral protection protocols and seller alignment guidelines to restore partner confidence and encourage MSX usage. This also will hamper future ASPX data when MSX becomes an attribution signal. For channel heavy partners CPOR can be an additional challenge and MSX can be a great solution to the attribution challenge. Impact: Improves partner trust, increases MSX pipeline visibility, and strengthens GTM collaboration.Notes: This is a very similar challenge that BlueVoyant has voiced. However, the additional insights on MSX attribution I feel is worth calling out and being considered.