FPC Program Ideas/Suggestions

Partner receives the Monthly report on MCI performance that they signed up to  - https://aka.ms/IncentivesPerformanceReportsThey feel the refresh on this and delivery is too slow for the business, ideally a minimum of 14 days is what they require to be able to adequately plan ahead for campaigns.

We need to log CPOR for program performance. We have clients that decline to complete the POE for CPOR because we are claiming Copilot or other Modern Workloads all because in partnercenter currently CPOR of Modern work or Security workloads is called Security Usage Incentive this is confusing for the client! please rename the partnercenter ability to CPOR to something more generic like CPOR for Modern Work/Security or something but not only "Security Usage Incentive"     many thanks

Why not have automated forms sent out to partners after a certain period of time to provide feedback on a referral? 

Hi team, regarding the Modern Work Deployment Vouchers we are seeing a lot of delay in customers deciding the affiliate partner for whom to give the voucher. This results in delay of activating the voucher and getting the deployment activities ongoing. Some customer segments have more delays than others, for example critical infrastructure related companies or government entities. Public sector overall is usually slower and resources in the customer side are really thin. This affects gravely in the project activities and we run great risk in not being able to deliver within the timeline because of customer resourcing. For better program experience for partners and better success for deployment activities one idea would be to extend the initial standard voucher deadlines for these kind of customers. The current possible extension of 2 months through request to the program team would come on top of this.

Referral team does a poor job differentiating between FastTrack referral and Standard referrals. I have received a FastTrack referral that clearly stated in the case history "not a FastTrack assistance".

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. 

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