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.

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. 

Distribution needs to have both the Tier1 and the Teir 2 resellers information in the API feed for integration into their provisioning and billing reseller portals.

CSP product names do not correlate to the workloads in the MPX data feeds. CSP sellers need to understand what the usage data means in the CSP vernacular. i.e. Business essentials, etc. 

Partners who were offboarded from the Program, did not receive automatically the T&Cs for Deployment Vouchers to be signed so that they could continue to redeem the Vouchers. I was contacted by different partners who did not continue in the Program, to provide the guidance on the next steps (reach out to the PXPartner Onboarding team, to check eligibility for the Deployment Voucher Program and to send the T&Cs to the partner to be signed).The same scenario could happen for Global partners, where some other subsidiaries that are not in the Program, may want to start redeeming vouchers and there is no process shared with them. Ask: Please publish the official guidance for partners that are no longer FastTrack Ready on how to redeem deployment vouchers.