This case study is part of the Azure Licensing & Cost Optimisation pillar series. Related guides include Azure Arc in the Enterprise, Microsoft EA Renewals, and Microsoft EA Case Studies.
Background
The client is a leading telecommunications company headquartered in Buenos Aires, Argentina, with operations spanning mobile, broadband, and fixed-line services across South America. With approximately 10,000 employees serving millions of subscribers and annual revenue of approximately USD $1.5 billion (ARS 150 billion), the company is one of the largest telcos in the region and a significant Microsoft enterprise customer. The telecom industry operates on razor-thin consumer margins with enormous infrastructure costs, making cost optimisation on every vendor contract a strategic priority rather than a mere procurement exercise.
The company's Microsoft estate was substantial and multi-dimensional. Microsoft 365 licences covered all corporate and regional office staff, predominantly E3, with approximately 1,000 users on E5 for IT, cybersecurity, and teams that had adopted Microsoft Teams Phone System for call centre operations. Azure formed the backbone of the company's digital transformation: hosting internal applications, customer-facing services including AI-powered customer support bots, data analytics platforms, and development/test environments. The EA also included SQL Server licences (some on-premises, some migrated to Azure SQL), Power BI Pro licences distributed across various departments, and SharePoint infrastructure.
The existing EA was mid-term, but two converging pressures created urgency for proactive renegotiation. First, the company had launched a corporate-wide cost-cutting programme that required every business unit to identify savings. Second, the Azure commitment was approaching its renewal window, and the company's cloud consumption team had identified that actual Azure usage was running significantly below the committed spend level, meaning they were paying for cloud resources they were not consuming. The CFO directed the IT leadership to engage Redress Compliance to quantify the waste, restructure the agreement, and negotiate terms that reflected actual business needs rather than optimistic projections.
The Challenges
Azure Overcommitment
The company was consuming only approximately 80% of its annual Azure commitment, a 20% gap representing millions of pesos in paid-but-unused cloud resources. The overcommitment stemmed from projections during the original negotiation that assumed a faster cloud migration pace than actually materialised, including a major analytics platform that was delayed by 18 months.
E5 Licence Waste
Approximately 1,000 users held E5 licences, but analysis showed only ~200 genuinely used E5-exclusive features (Defender for Endpoint, advanced compliance, Teams Phone). The remaining ~800 used email, Office apps, and Teams, identical to E3 functionality, yet the company paid the substantial E5 premium for each.
Ghost Accounts & Shelfware
Approximately 500 inactive or duplicate accounts persisted across the estate, accumulated from employee turnover, regional office mergers, and a partial organisational restructuring. Power BI Pro licences were similarly over-allocated: many holders only viewed reports (available on free viewer roles) rather than creating them. Several SQL Server licences with Software Assurance were maintained on-premises for databases already migrated to Azure SQL, creating a dual-payment situation.
Currency & Inflation Risk
Argentina's hyperinflationary environment meant that ARS-denominated payments created unpredictable cost spikes when the currency devalued against USD. The existing EA contained no currency protection mechanism, exposing the company to significant budget volatility that made multi-year financial planning extremely difficult. See Negotiating Price Protections in Your Microsoft EA.
Microsoft's preliminary stance in renewal discussions compounded these challenges rather than addressing them. The Microsoft account team proposed maintaining or increasing the Azure commitment, citing new Azure AI services, Power Platform expansions, and other capabilities the company "could" adopt. They also pushed for retaining the full E5 footprint, arguing that the advanced security features were essential for a telecommunications company handling customer data. There was no proposal to address the overcommitment, ghost accounts, Power BI waste, or currency exposure.
The company additionally faced structural inflexibility in the existing EA. The contract permitted additions but not reductions. For a telecom operating in a dynamic market with ongoing transformation, this rigidity was commercially unacceptable. See Negotiating Termination and Renewal Options in Your Microsoft EA for how to secure flexible terms.
How Redress Compliance Helped
Azure Consumption Deep-Dive
Redress conducted a granular analysis of Azure consumption using Azure Cost Management data, resource-level utilisation metrics, and the company's internal project pipeline. The analysis confirmed the 20% overcommitment and identified the specific drivers: a planned analytics platform that remained in pilot (consuming 40% of its projected capacity), over-provisioned virtual machines running at 30–50% CPU utilisation that could be right-sized, and orphaned resources (storage accounts, stopped VMs, unused IP addresses) accruing charges with no business value.
Redress projected realistic Azure consumption for the next two years, accounting for confirmed projects, cloud migration timelines validated with the infrastructure team (not Microsoft's optimistic assumptions), and the company's actual adoption velocity. The analysis concluded that reducing the commitment by approximately 15% would align spend with actual usage while preserving flexibility for growth. Redress also identified approximately $200K in immediate Azure cost savings from right-sizing VMs, eliminating orphaned resources, and switching appropriate workloads from pay-as-you-go to reserved instances. See Managing Azure Overages.
Microsoft 365 and Licence Portfolio Audit
Redress audited the full M365 and ancillary licence portfolio using Azure AD sign-in analytics, Microsoft 365 usage reports, and the company's HR system for headcount validation. The audit identified three categories of waste.
First, E5 over-licensing: of the ~1,000 E5 users, only approximately 200 were actively using E5-exclusive features, the security team leveraging Defender for Endpoint, the compliance team using advanced eDiscovery, and the call centre units using Teams Phone System. The remaining ~800 showed identical usage patterns to E3 users. Second, ghost accounts: approximately 500 accounts were inactive (no sign-in for 90+ days), duplicated across regions, or orphaned after the restructuring. Third, ancillary licence waste: Power BI Pro licences had been distributed broadly, but many holders only consumed published reports. Several SQL Server licences with Software Assurance were maintained on-premises for databases already migrated to Azure SQL. See Microsoft Licensing Usage Review Template and Auditing Your Microsoft License Usage.
Negotiation: Azure Restructure, Licence Optimisation & Commercial Terms
Armed with comprehensive data, Redress led the negotiation with Microsoft. The negotiation addressed four dimensions simultaneously.
On Azure, Redress negotiated a 15% reduction in the Azure commitment with a critical structural improvement: consumption above the new commitment threshold would be charged at the same discounted rate up to a defined ceiling, effectively pay-as-you-go with committed-spend pricing, eliminating the waste of an over-sized commitment while protecting the company from premium rates if demand spiked.
On M365, Redress negotiated maintaining E5 for only the ~200 confirmed power users and downgrading ~800 users to E3, with a promotional clause allowing the company to re-upgrade at a preferential rate if future feature rollouts justified it. The 500 ghost accounts were deprovisioned, and Power BI Pro licences were reduced. Idle on-premises SQL Server licences were identified for either retirement or Azure Hybrid Benefit credit application.
On commercial flexibility, Redress secured a true-down provision allowing the company to reduce a percentage of licences at renewal. On currency protection, Redress negotiated a rate-cap mechanism limiting the impact of ARS devaluation on payments. The combined impact of all four dimensions delivered a 15% total reduction in annual Microsoft spend. See Key Leverage Points to Negotiate Better Microsoft Deals.
Long-Term Cost Governance Framework
Beyond the immediate negotiation, Redress established a governance framework to prevent cost drift from recurring. For Azure, this included implementing Azure Cost Management alerts and budgets at the subscription and resource-group level, scheduling monthly cloud governance reviews, and establishing a VM right-sizing cadence (quarterly reviews using Azure Advisor recommendations).
For M365, Redress provided automated scripts to identify inactive accounts (no sign-in for 90 days) and flag them for reclamation quarterly. The governance plan included a 12-month checkpoint: if the security team completed its Defender for Endpoint rollout and demonstrated value, specific user groups could be upgraded to E5 at the negotiated promotional rate.
The CIO formalised a software licensing committee responsible for monitoring licence utilisation, reviewing Azure consumption against commitment, and ensuring that any new Microsoft purchases were validated against actual usage data before approval. See Microsoft SAM and License Optimization and the Post-Renewal Checklist.
Outcome and Impact
| Metric | Before Engagement | After Redress Advisory |
|---|---|---|
| Total Microsoft EA spend | 100% (baseline) | 85%: 15% reduction achieved |
| Azure commitment vs. consumption | 80% utilisation: 20% waste | ~100% utilisation: waste eliminated; pay-as-you-go for bursts |
| E5 licence count | ~1,000 users | ~200 confirmed power users (800 downgraded to E3) |
| Ghost accounts | ~500 inactive/duplicate accounts | All deprovisioned: licences reclaimed |
| Power BI Pro licences | Over-allocated: many assigned to report viewers | Reduced to actual creators; viewers on free roles |
| Currency exposure | No protection: full ARS devaluation risk | Rate-cap mechanism providing budget predictability |
| Commercial flexibility | No ability to reduce: additions only | True-down provision for major business changes; Azure burst pricing |
The 15% total spend reduction was substantial for an organisation of this scale, representing tens of millions of ARS in annual savings that the CFO's office could redirect to network infrastructure upgrades and customer-facing digital initiatives with clearer return on investment.
The Azure restructure was particularly impactful. By aligning the commitment to actual consumption, the company stopped the haemorrhage of paid-but-unused cloud resources. Azure transitioned from a lump-sum expense partly going to waste into a well-governed utility with consumption matched to business value.
The E5 downgrade removed a significant layer of cost without any impact on daily productivity. The ~800 users who moved to E3 noticed no difference. The 200 users who retained E5 were identified as genuine power users: the security team deployed Defender for Endpoint more aggressively knowing that only committed users held the licence, and the compliance team expanded its use of advanced eDiscovery. Fewer E5 licences generating more actual security and compliance value: a better outcome for both the budget and the organisation's risk posture.
The currency protection mechanism was a critical win. In a country where annual inflation regularly exceeds 100%, a multi-year Microsoft agreement without currency protection can produce year-over-year payment increases that dwarf any negotiated discount.
"Redress Compliance helped us take back control of our Microsoft spending. We knew we were overspending on Azure and licences, but Redress showed us exactly where and how much, then negotiated a solution that made an immediate impact. We are saving approximately 15% on our Microsoft costs, which is significant for us, and no longer paying for unused cloud resources. What I appreciate most is that we achieved these savings without cutting any corners. Redress's independent expertise and tough negotiation on our behalf levelled the playing field with Microsoft. Now our EA fits our business, not the other way around."
— CFO, Argentine Telecom Provider
Key Lessons for Telecom and Large Enterprise CIOs
Audit Azure Consumption Before Renewal
Most Azure commitments are sized on optimistic projections. Analyse actual consumption at the resource level, identify orphaned resources, right-size over-provisioned VMs, and project realistic demand based on confirmed projects. A 15–20% overcommitment gap is common and entirely recoverable. See Azure Cost Optimisation Assessment.
Challenge E5 as an Organisation-Wide Need
E5 is a powerful security and compliance suite, but only a small percentage of users typically leverage its exclusive features. Profile E5 usage by feature (Defender, Teams Phone, advanced eDiscovery, Power BI included) and downgrade users whose consumption matches E3. The per-user cost difference compounds across thousands of seats. See M365 Licensing Cost 2026.
Eliminate Ghost Accounts Systematically
Employee turnover, M&A, and organisational restructuring create inactive accounts that consume paid licences silently. Implement automated 90-day inactivity detection and quarterly deprovisioning reviews. In large enterprises, ghost accounts routinely represent 3–5% of total licence spend. See Eliminating Redundant Microsoft Software.
Negotiate Azure Burst Pricing at Committed-Spend Rates
Rather than over-committing to avoid premium rates, negotiate a structure where consumption above the commitment threshold is charged at the same discounted rate up to a defined ceiling. This eliminates overcommitment waste while preserving price protection. See Negotiating Azure Consumption Commitments.
Demand Currency Protection in Volatile Economies
For organisations operating in high-inflation environments, a multi-year EA without currency protection is a budget risk that can exceed any negotiated discount. Negotiate rate-cap mechanisms, USD-denominated pricing, or indexation formulas. See Negotiating Price Protections in Your EA.
Secure True-Down Provisions for Dynamic Businesses
Standard EA terms permit additions but not reductions. If your business environment includes potential divestitures, outsourcing, or large-scale workforce changes, negotiate a true-down clause allowing you to reduce licences at renewal anniversaries. See EA Contract Guide for Legal Teams.
Establish a Software Licensing Committee
One-off optimisation degrades without ongoing governance. Formalise a cross-functional committee (IT, finance, procurement) responsible for monitoring utilisation, Azure consumption, and vendor contract terms. See Microsoft SAM and License Optimization and Microsoft EA Vendor Management Guide.
Engage Independent Advisers for EA Renegotiation
Microsoft's account team is incentivised to maintain or grow spend. Independent advisers benchmark Azure commitments against actual consumption, validate licence utilisation data, and negotiate structural terms that Microsoft will not offer unprompted. See Microsoft EA Optimisation Service.
Frequently Asked Questions
An Azure commitment (often called a Microsoft Azure Consumption Commitment or MACC) is an agreement to spend a minimum amount on Azure services over the EA term. Overcommitment occurs when the organisation pays for more Azure capacity than it actually consumes. This typically happens because the original commitment was sized on growth projections that did not fully materialise. In this case, the company was consuming only 80% of its commitment, meaning 20% of paid Azure spend generated no business value. The gap is common: Redress finds that 15–25% overcommitment is typical in large enterprise Azure agreements. See Managing Azure Overages.
The 15% reduction came from four complementary actions, none of which involved removing tools that users actively needed. Azure restructure: reducing the commitment to match actual consumption eliminated waste. E5 downgrade: 800 users who were not using any E5-exclusive features moved to E3 with no functional impact. Ghost account deprovisioning: 500 inactive accounts were removed. Ancillary licence trimming: Power BI Pro and on-premises SQL Server licences were reduced to match actual usage. See Microsoft 365 License Optimization.
This is a commercial structure where the company commits to a reduced Azure spend level and receives committed-spend discount rates on that consumption. If consumption exceeds the commitment, the excess is charged at the same discounted rate (not premium pay-as-you-go rates) up to a defined ceiling. This eliminates the need to over-commit in order to protect pricing, because growth consumption is automatically covered at favourable rates. See Negotiating Azure Consumption Commitments and Reserved Capacity vs Pay-As-You-Go.
Microsoft typically invoices EA customers in their local currency or in USD. In countries with high inflation or volatile exchange rates, local-currency payments can escalate dramatically over a multi-year EA term. A rate-cap mechanism limits the impact of currency devaluation on payments, providing budget predictability. Without it, the entire value of negotiated discounts can be consumed by exchange-rate movements. For any organisation operating in an inflationary environment, currency protection should be a non-negotiable component of EA commercial terms.
A true-down provision allows the customer to reduce a specified percentage of licences at EA renewal anniversaries. Standard EA terms lock you into your licence count for three years: if you divest a business unit, outsource a function, or reduce headcount, you continue paying for those licences until the term expires. True-down provisions are not standard in Microsoft EAs and must be negotiated explicitly. See Negotiating Termination and Renewal Options.
Ghost accounts accumulate through employee turnover (departing employees' accounts not deprovisioned promptly), M&A and restructuring (duplicate accounts from mergers), and seasonal or contractor workers whose accounts are never cleaned up. Even a 5% annual turnover rate generates hundreds of leavers per year. In this case, the 500 ghost accounts represented approximately 5% of the total licence estate. See Eliminating Redundant Microsoft Software and Microsoft Licensing Usage Review Template.
Redress established a four-component governance framework: Azure cost management (automated alerts and budgets with monthly reviews), licence lifecycle automation (90-day inactivity flags with quarterly deprovisioning), periodic right-sizing reviews (quarterly VM right-sizing, annual E5-vs-E3 utilisation assessments), and a software licensing committee (cross-functional IT, finance, procurement group). See Microsoft SAM and License Optimization, Post-Renewal Checklist, and After the Ink Dries.
📚 Related Reading: Microsoft EA & Azure Guides
Azure Licensing & Cost Optimisation: A CIO's Playbook → Azure Arc in the Enterprise → Microsoft EA Renewal Guide → Microsoft EA Renewal Case Studies → Case Study: South Korean Electronics: 25% Savings → Case Study: Swedish Automotive: 25% Savings → Case Study: Brazilian Bank: 25% Savings → Case Study: Netherlands Manufacturing: 22% Savings → Case Study: US Healthcare: 30% Savings → Case Study: UK Financial Services: 35% Savings → Microsoft EA Negotiation Strategies → Microsoft Licensing Guide 2026 →Explore Microsoft Advisory Services
Vendor-independent. Fixed-fee. Hundreds of enterprise Microsoft EA engagements globally.
🚀 Overspending on Microsoft Azure or Licences?
Redress Compliance helps telecom and large enterprises eliminate Azure waste, right-size M365 licences, negotiate flexible commercial terms, and secure currency protection. We work completely independently of Microsoft.
EA Optimisation Service | Contract Negotiation | Book a Free EA Assessment