FPC Program Ideas/Suggestions

I am aware that the only badge that can be used now is the image that is displayed on the ExpertZone results screen after passing the exam. With only this image, for example, if you try to display the badge in a large size, the image will be rough. We think that if we can make it possible to download by size, like large, medium, and small, the badges will be more appealing to customers.

When pending a dispute for FRP in the Partner Support site, we used to be able to see all tickets opened from all members of our team. Now that is not posible and this creates a mess trying to follow up on tickets. CAS-03276-W4N8L has been opened in regards of this for months.

Main Concern: The ASPX dashboard currently consolidates Entra ID P1 and P2 usage into a single number, making it hard to isolate P2-specific usage.Impact: This creates ambiguity when trying to identify over-assignment or overusage for P2 licenses because the entitlement and usage counts aren’t broken out separately.Previous Behavior: Mike noted that the dashboard used to show P2 data separately, which allowed clearer visibility into compliance.Current Challenge: Now, the entitlement view shows P1 totals (e.g., 1,873 entitlements) without distinguishing P2 usage, even though customers may only have a couple of paid P2 licenses.Request: Mike asked for guidance on how to officially interpret and track P2 usage under the new combined view, since the previous clarity is gone.

Overview:Angi (eGroup) highlighted a critical trend impacting partner revenue streams: as customers transition from EA to CSP, they often discontinue Unified Support because CSP includes break-fix support at no additional cost. This shift significantly reduces the perceived need for paid managed services, creating a structural GTM blocker for partners like eGroup.Detailed Feedback & Context:Customer Behavior:Many customers only use Unified Support for ticket resolution and do not leverage its additional value-add services (training, proactive engagement).When moving to CSP, these customers see an opportunity to eliminate costs while still receiving break-fix support, making managed services upsell difficult.Angi noted: “We try to upsell it and want to be in there, but as people make that move, they’re like, sweet, I can save money on this and what I still need tickets for is just included in being a CSP.”Market Dynamics:CSP indirect providers like Ingram offer robust Tier 2 support and absorb Microsoft escalation costs, reinforcing the perception that CSP support is “good enough.”This model commoditizes basic support and erodes differentiation for partners who traditionally relied on Unified Support gaps to position premium managed services.Partner Impact:Reduced attach opportunities for managed services, especially for customers who prioritize cost savings over enhanced experience.Even when prospects express dissatisfaction with Unified Support (e.g., poor value, lack of technical depth), converting them to paid managed services remains challenging for large enterprises due to cost competitiveness.Angi emphasized that non-break-fix requests (e.g., proactive optimization) are rare, limiting upsell triggers.Business Implications:Revenue Risk: Partners lose a key monetization lever as CSP adoption accelerates.Customer Experience Gap: Customers may settle for reactive support, missing opportunities for proactive optimization and strategic guidance.Program Misalignment: Current CSP support structure unintentionally disincentivizes managed services adoption, conflicting with Microsoft’s goal of driving partner-led value.Recap: eGroup + Enabling/FRP Microsoft Sync Wednesday, November 12 | Meeting | Microsoft Teams

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. 

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.