In roughly 20 of 25 renewals, the structure decision moved more money than the discount negotiation did
A discount is a percentage applied to a shape somebody else chose. Changing the shape is available to you, it is rarely on the agenda, and in most of the renewals we ran it was worth more.
Prepared by Redress Compliance · August 17, 2026 · Microsoft advisory. 25 to 35 Microsoft renewals advised, 2024 to 2025.
Executive summary
In roughly 20 of the 25 plus renewals advised, structure moved more money than discount. Carving volatile populations to CSP, splitting SKU stacks by telemetry, and resizing commits beat discount points wherever workforce or usage was uneven.
First proposals opened 10 to 25 percent above the eventually achievable close. The proposal is an anchor rather than a price, and negotiating it as presented concedes the shape before the number is even discussed.
CIOs who priced a second structure gained 5 to 12 points of additional concession. Even without intending to switch. A priced alternative structure is worth holding whether or not you use it.
Buyers who scored proposals against a structured framework closed consistently lower. Than buyers who negotiated the proposal as presented, which is the difference between evaluating a proposal and responding to one.
The structural levers, and what they act on
Structure means the shape of the agreement rather than the price on it. Three moves account for most of the movement.
| Move | What it acts on | When it pays |
|---|---|---|
| Carve volatile populations to CSP | Headcount that moves | Wherever workforce is uneven or seasonal |
| Split SKU stacks by telemetry | Users on the wrong plan | Wherever usage is unevenly distributed |
| Resize commits | The committed base itself | Wherever the commit was set on a forecast |
| Negotiate the discount | The percentage on the shape above | Always available, and usually the smaller half |
The last row is the one every renewal spends its time on. A discount is a percentage applied to a shape somebody else proposed, which means the maximum available from discounting is bounded by a structure you did not choose. The three rows above it change what is being priced at all. In roughly 20 of the 25 plus renewals advised, that distinction was worth more than everything won on the percentage, and in every estate where workforce or usage was uneven it was not close.
The proposal is an anchor, and the shape is the argument
Across roughly 25 to 35 Microsoft renewals advised in 2024 and 2025, the buyers who scored proposals against a structured framework closed consistently lower than buyers who negotiated the proposal as presented. That is a statement about method rather than about toughness. Microsoft's first renewal proposal opens 10 to 25 percent above the achievable close in our benchmarks, and its function is to anchor. A buyer who engages with it line by line has already accepted the shape of the deal and is now arguing about a percentage applied to it.
The more consequential finding is what happens when the shape itself is on the table. In roughly 20 of the 25 plus renewals advised, the structure decision moved more money than the discount negotiation. The moves are specific rather than abstract: carving volatile populations to CSP so that headcount that moves is not sitting on a three year commitment, splitting SKU stacks by telemetry so that users are on the plan their usage supports rather than the one the bundle assumed, and resizing commits so the committed base reflects measured demand rather than a forecast. In every estate where workforce or usage was uneven, these beat discount points.
There is a second order effect worth naming because it is cheap to obtain. CIOs who priced a second structure, even without intending to switch, gained 5 to 12 points of additional concession. Pricing an alternative does not require committing to it. What it changes is that the current structure stops being the only thing on the table, which converts the conversation from how much off this into which of these two, and the second question is the one where a vendor has to compete.
What this asks of a renewal team is mostly reordering rather than extra work. Score the proposal against a framework rather than reading it. Establish where workforce and usage are uneven, because that is where the structural moves pay and where a flat proposal is most likely to be mispriced. Price a second structure early enough that it is credible. And treat the discount as the last conversation rather than the first, since a good percentage on a shape you did not choose is a bounded outcome. The Software Assurance question sits in the SA playbook, the plan mix in the E3, E5, and F3 brief, and the library in the Microsoft practice.
- Usage exports analysed: inactive accounts, plan right sizing, per user reassignment
- Your renewal quote benchmarked against real closed Microsoft deals
- Every risky clause flagged with the exact quote, the page, and the replacement language
How to evaluate the proposal
- Score the proposal against a framework rather than reading it, because buyers who did closed consistently lower than those who negotiated it as presented.
- Treat the first proposal as an anchor, since it opens 10 to 25 percent above the achievable close and is designed to set the shape as much as the price.
- Find where workforce and usage are uneven, which is where the structural moves pay and where a flat proposal is most likely mispriced.
- Carve volatile populations to CSP so headcount that moves is not carried on a multi year commitment.
- Split SKU stacks by telemetry so users sit on the plan their usage supports rather than the one the bundle assumed.
- Price a second structure early, which was worth 5 to 12 points even where the buyer never intended to switch.
What the renewals showed, 2024 to 2025
Across roughly 25 to 35 Microsoft renewals advised:
Renewals where the structure decision moved more money than the discount negotiation, and in uneven estates it was not close.
Additional concession gained by CIOs who priced an alternative structure, even without intending to switch to it.
First proposals opened 10 to 25 percent above the eventually achievable close across the file. The proposal is an anchor, and buyers who scored it against a structured framework closed consistently lower than buyers who negotiated it as presented.
The structural moves that carried the difference were carving volatile populations to CSP, splitting SKU stacks by telemetry, and resizing commits.
Watch the briefing · 3:585 Tips for Your Microsoft NegotiationWhich lines are worth the renewal attention, and which are bounded before you start.
Your first five moves
- Map where workforce and usage are uneven before the proposal arrives, since that is where structure pays.
- Score the proposal against a framework rather than working through it line by line as presented.
- Model the CSP carve for volatile headcount, and the telemetry split for the SKU stacks.
- Price a second structure in full, which was worth 5 to 12 points even unused.
- Leave the discount conversation until last. The Microsoft practice scores the proposal with you.
Frequently asked questions
What moves more money, structure or discount?
Structure, in roughly 20 of the 25 plus renewals advised. Carving volatile populations to CSP, splitting SKU stacks by telemetry, and resizing commits beat discount points in every estate where workforce or usage was uneven.
How far above the close does the first proposal open?
10 to 25 percent above the eventually achievable close, across the benchmarks. It functions as an anchor, and engaging with it line by line concedes the shape before the number is discussed.
What is the difference between structure and discount?
A discount is a percentage applied to a shape somebody else proposed, so its maximum is bounded by a structure you did not choose. Structural moves change what is being priced at all.
Is it worth pricing an alternative structure?
Yes, and notably even when you do not intend to switch. CIOs who priced a second structure gained 5 to 12 points of additional concession, because the current structure stops being the only thing on the table.
What is the CSP carve?
Moving volatile populations, headcount that changes, onto CSP so it is not carried on a multi year commitment. It pays wherever the workforce is uneven or seasonal.
What does splitting SKU stacks by telemetry mean?
Putting users on the plan their measured usage supports rather than the one the bundle assumed. It requires usage data, which is why it has to start before the proposal arrives.
Why does scoring beat reading?
Because a proposal read line by line is evaluated on its own terms. Buyers who scored proposals against a structured framework closed consistently lower than those who negotiated the proposal as presented.
Where do the structural moves pay most?
Wherever workforce or usage is uneven. A flat proposal priced across an uneven estate is mispriced somewhere, and finding where is the whole exercise.
When should the discount be negotiated?
Last. A good percentage applied to a shape you did not choose is a bounded outcome, and spending the negotiation there is how the structural opportunity gets missed.
Does this apply to MCA and CSP as well as EA?
Yes, and the choice between them is itself one of the structural levers. The question is which vehicle carries which population, not which single vehicle the whole estate should sit on.
Your 2027 Renewal Is Not Your 2024 Renewal
Session 1 of the Microsoft EA Renewal 2027 Series. The discount levels are gone, the suites cost more, support multiplies both, and the EA itself is only committed through 2027. What changed, what it does to your renewal, and where you should already be today.
The tier above E5 is generally available. What it adds, what it costs, and who it is actually for.
A 25 to 29 percent annual premium against 2 to 4 benefits actually used.
The mid term reshape beat the original commitment in more than half the cases.
