Forty million dollar EDP renewal. Savings Plan framework. Data egress framework. The buyer side moves across fourteen weeks. The structural framework that delivered the thirty one percent reduction at the upper enterprise customer scale.
A German online services group, running across the European Union and the broader European market, ran the AWS framework as the load bearing cloud framework across the customer's broader cloud strategy. The customer was approaching the EDP renewal cycle on a forty million dollar three year EDP commitment, with the AWS framework spanning the AWS compute framework, the AWS storage framework, the AWS data transfer framework, the AWS database framework, the AWS analytics framework, the AWS security framework, and the broader AWS framework. The customer's AWS framework was structurally important to the customer's broader business framework, with the customer's online services platform running on the AWS framework. The engagement was scoped against the EDP renewal cycle, with the cumulative effect that the engagement aligned with the customer's actual AWS renewal timing. Read the related AWS advisory practice, the AWS EDP negotiation, the AWS vendor management playbook, and the AWS RI and Savings Plan optimization.
The engagement delivered a thirty one percent reduction across the AWS run rate, with the cumulative effect that the customer's AWS framework saved twelve point four million dollars over the three year EDP term against the publisher's preferred AWS framework. The engagement also delivered a structurally improved AWS framework that matched the customer's actual AWS consumption framework, with the cumulative effect that the customer's AWS framework reflects the customer's actual AWS consumption rather than the publisher's preferred broad AWS framework. The case study sets out the full buyer side framework that delivered the thirty one percent reduction at the upper enterprise customer scale.
The customer was running the AWS framework on a forty million dollar three year EDP commitment, with the broader AWS framework spanning the AWS compute framework, the AWS storage framework, the AWS data transfer framework, and the broader AWS framework. The customer's AWS framework was the load bearing cloud framework across the customer's broader cloud strategy, with the customer's online services platform running on the AWS framework. The customer was approaching the EDP renewal cycle, with the publisher's preferred EDP renewal framing producing a fifty five million dollar three year EDP commitment against the publisher's preferred broad AWS consumption framework.
The customer's AWS framework had grown materially over the prior three year EDP term, with the customer's actual AWS consumption framework running at approximately fifteen million dollars per year against the original forty million dollar three year EDP commitment. The cumulative effect was the customer's AWS framework was approaching the original EDP commitment level, with the publisher's preferred EDP renewal framing extrapolating the customer's broader AWS consumption framework against the publisher's preferred broad AWS consumption framework. The customer's broader cloud strategy framework also included the Azure framework and the Google Cloud framework, with the cumulative effect that the customer's broader cloud framework had three principal hyperscaler frameworks running alongside each other.
The publisher's preferred EDP renewal proposal anchored the broad AWS commitment against the publisher's preferred broad AWS consumption framework. The proposal sized the EDP renewal commitment at fifty five million dollars over three years, with the EDP discount tier framework anchored to the broader EDP commitment level. The proposal also included the publisher's preferred Savings Plan framework, with the Savings Plan framework sized at the broader Savings Plan coverage against the customer's broader AWS compute framework. The proposal also included the publisher's preferred data transfer framework, with the data transfer framework anchored to the publisher's preferred data egress framework rather than the structural data egress relief framework.
The proposal also included the publisher's preferred AWS contract terms framework, with the contract terms framework anchored to the publisher's preferred AWS contract terms rather than the structural contract terms framework. The proposal also included the publisher's preferred AWS Marketplace framework, with the Marketplace framework anchored to the publisher's preferred broad Marketplace framework rather than the structural Marketplace framework. The cumulative effect was a publisher preferred EDP renewal framework that exceeded the customer's actual AWS consumption requirement and the customer's actual AWS contract terms requirement.
The framework analysis ran across four principal AWS commercial frameworks. The EDP commitment framework, where the customer's actual AWS consumption framework anchored the EDP commitment sizing framework. The Savings Plan framework, where the customer's actual AWS compute framework anchored the Savings Plan sizing framework. The data egress framework, where the customer's actual data egress framework anchored the data egress relief framework. The contract terms framework, where the customer's actual contract terms requirement anchored the contract terms framework. The framework analysis produced the customer's actual AWS framework against the publisher's preferred broad AWS framework, with the cumulative effect that the customer's actual AWS framework was approximately thirty percent below the publisher's preferred broad AWS framework.
The framework analysis also ran the alternatives framework analysis at the EDP renewal cycle. The customer's broader cloud strategy framework included the Azure framework and the Google Cloud framework, with the cumulative effect that the customer had structural alternative frameworks at the EDP renewal cycle. The alternatives framework analysis produced the structural commercial leverage at the EDP renewal negotiation, with the cumulative effect that the AWS framework needed to compete against the customer's broader cloud framework rather than the captive AWS framework framing. Read the related AWS Azure GCP competitive framework and the midwestern US bank AWS case study.
The buyer side framework had nine moves that compounded across the AWS commercial framework. One. The EDP commitment sizing framework, which sized the EDP commitment against the customer's eighty five percent confidence AWS consumption trajectory rather than the publisher's preferred one hundred percent confidence AWS consumption trajectory. Two. The EDP discount tier framework, which negotiated the EDP discount tier against the customer's actual EDP commitment level rather than the publisher's preferred broad EDP commitment level. Three. The Savings Plan framework, which sized the Savings Plan against the customer's actual AWS compute framework rather than the publisher's preferred broad Savings Plan framework.
Four. The data egress framework, which negotiated the explicit data egress relief framework against the publisher's preferred data egress framework. Five. The Reserved Instance framework, which sized the Reserved Instance framework against the customer's stable AWS compute framework rather than the publisher's preferred broad Reserved Instance framework. Six. The AWS Marketplace framework, which integrated the customer's third party software framework with the AWS Marketplace framework, with the cumulative effect that the customer's third party software framework leveraged the EDP commitment framework.
Seven. The alternatives framework analysis, which ran the AWS framework against the customer's broader cloud framework, with the cumulative effect that the AWS framework competed against the customer's broader cloud framework. Eight. The contract terms framework, which negotiated the explicit AWS contract terms framework against the publisher's preferred AWS contract terms framework. Nine. The renewal cycle framework, which negotiated the EDP renewal cycle framework against the customer's broader AWS framework, with the cumulative effect that the EDP renewal cycle framework reflected the customer's broader AWS framework rather than the standalone EDP renewal cycle framework.
The counter proposal anchored the EDP renewal commitment at thirty eight million dollars over three years against the publisher's preferred fifty five million dollar EDP renewal proposal. The counter proposal sized the EDP commitment against the customer's eighty five percent confidence AWS consumption trajectory rather than the publisher's preferred one hundred percent confidence AWS consumption trajectory, with the cumulative effect that the EDP commitment matched the customer's actual AWS consumption framework rather than the publisher's preferred broad AWS consumption framework. The counter proposal also included the explicit data egress relief framework, the structural Savings Plan framework, the Reserved Instance framework, the AWS Marketplace framework, and the broader AWS contract terms framework.
The counter proposal also included the explicit AWS contract terms framework, with the contract terms framework handling the EDP commitment level, the EDP discount tier framework, the data egress framework, the Savings Plan framework, the Reserved Instance framework, the Marketplace framework, the renewal cycle framework, and the broader AWS contract terms framework. The cumulative effect was a counter proposal that matched the customer's actual AWS framework rather than the publisher's preferred broad AWS framework, with the counter proposal positioned to deliver the thirty one percent reduction across the AWS run rate.
The close ran across the four week contract finalisation framework. The close negotiated the final EDP commitment level at thirty eight million dollars over three years, with the EDP discount tier framework anchored at the structural EDP discount tier level. The close also negotiated the explicit data egress relief framework, the structural Savings Plan framework, the Reserved Instance framework, the AWS Marketplace framework, and the broader AWS contract terms framework. The close also negotiated the EDP renewal cycle framework against the customer's broader AWS framework, with the cumulative effect that the EDP renewal cycle framework reflected the customer's broader AWS framework rather than the standalone EDP renewal cycle framework.
The close also handled the customer's broader cloud strategy framework, with the AWS framework integrated with the customer's broader cloud framework across the customer's Azure framework and the customer's Google Cloud framework. The close also handled the customer's broader cloud commitment framework, with the AWS EDP framework integrated with the customer's Azure MACC framework and the customer's Google Cloud Committed Use Discount framework. The cumulative effect was a structurally improved AWS framework that matched the customer's broader cloud strategy framework rather than the standalone AWS framework. Read the related Azure MACC negotiation framework and the GCP negotiation leverage framework.
The case study set out three principal lessons for the broader AWS customer base. One. The EDP commitment sizing framework needs to anchor against the customer's actual AWS consumption trajectory rather than the publisher's preferred broad AWS consumption framework, with the cumulative effect that the EDP commitment matches the customer's actual AWS consumption framework rather than the publisher's preferred broad AWS consumption framework. Two. The alternatives framework analysis produces the structural commercial leverage at the EDP renewal cycle, with the cumulative effect that the AWS framework needs to compete against the customer's broader cloud framework rather than the captive AWS framework framing. Three. The AWS contract terms framework needs to anchor against the customer's actual contract terms requirement rather than the publisher's preferred AWS contract terms framework, with the cumulative effect that the AWS contract terms framework matches the customer's actual contract terms requirement rather than the publisher's preferred AWS contract terms framework.
The framework is set out in detail in our AWS EDP Negotiation Guide, the AWS vendor management playbook, the AWS RI and Savings Plan optimization, and the AWS data transfer egress negotiation framework. Read the related global technology AWS case study, the midwestern US bank AWS case study, the AWS Azure GCP competitive framework, the AWS Bedrock licensing framework, and the broader Azure cost optimization playbook.
The EDP commitment framework, the EDP discount tier framework, the Savings Plan framework, the Reserved Instance framework, the data egress framework, the AWS Marketplace framework, and the buyer side moves at every step of the AWS EDP renewal cycle.
Used across the AWS practice. Independent. Buyer side. Built for IT procurement leaders running the next AWS EDP cycle.
AWS framed the EDP renewal as the immediate fifty five million dollar commitment with the broad consumption framework. Redress reframed the EDP renewal around the eighty five percent confidence consumption trajectory, the explicit data egress relief, the alternatives framework, and the structural contract terms. Thirty one percent reduction across the AWS run rate.
Tell us where you are on the AWS EDP cycle. EDP commitment sizing, EDP discount tier framework, Savings Plan framework, data egress framework, alternatives framework analysis, or the broader AWS contract terms framework. Thirty minute scoping call. No obligation.
EDP renewal patterns, Savings Plan framework signals, Reserved Instance framework signals, data egress signals, and the AWS commercial leverage signals across the AWS practice.
