FPC Program ideas/suggestions

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.