Redress Compliance runs a Google Cloud cost optimization service for enterprises whose spend has outgrown its structure, 100 percent buyer side. We remove waste, choose CUD types and BigQuery pricing per workload, then size the commitment from the optimized run rate. Fees are fixed; a US media company saved $300K a year.
Negotiating Google 11: Run Google Between Renewals
The realization gap between paper rate and ledger rate, the monthly FinOps rhythm, the account team managed on your calendar, AI caps and routing reviews, and the evidence file that keeps the next deal warm.
When spend climbs faster than the business and nobody designed the discount structure. Typical signs are idle and oversized resources, storage growing without lifecycle rules, non production running around the clock, and a commit agreement sized from a growth story rather than measured burn.
Three situations bring most clients to us:
This service is part of our Google Cloud negotiation services. The optimized run rate feeds straight into Google Cloud commit negotiation, and our Google Cloud licensing consultants can review a single proposal on its own.
Google Cloud overspend has a generic layer and a Google specific one. We work both, across six waste drivers and the discount structure on top:
The US media company in our case studies had three separate leaks: an overcommitted CUD, idle Workspace seats and uncached egress. Each sat with a different owner, which is why none had been fixed.
It runs in four workstreams, from the billing export to a right sized agreement. The consumption baseline lands within 10 business days of complete data, and a typical engagement closes in six to ten weeks.
| Deliverable | What it contains |
|---|---|
| Waste driver report | The six driver sweep with named owners and dollar savings per action, and the optimized run rate. |
| Rightsizing pack | Compute, BigQuery, GKE and storage mapping: recommended size, current cost, recommended cost and migration sequence per workload. |
| Service and commitment report | CUD structure per workload, sustained use mapping and the BigQuery pricing verdict. |
| Agreement and negotiation paper | The right sized commit, the benchmark verdict and the negotiation plan with required terms. |
| FinOps cadence | A monthly review template, dashboard specification, owner matrix and escalation triggers for renewal conversations. |
| Executive briefing | A CFO summary of savings, residual risk and the forward optimization roadmap. |
| Advisory through the term | Up to four advisory calls plus email support, with proposal assessments through signature. |
Three changes affect how a Google Cloud estate should be optimized now. Each comes from our current Google research.
FinOps tools, a Big Four firm, a Google partner or your own team can all find waste. The difference is whether the same work also structures the discounts and sizes the next commitment, and who is paid when that commitment grows.
| Option | Independence | Conflicts of interest | Google Cloud experience | How fees work |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redress Compliance | 100 percent buyer side: zero vendor affiliations, no reseller agreements, no referral fees | None tied to the size of your commitment | CUD, BigQuery and commit work across 500+ enterprise clients | Fixed fee, or 25 percent of savings on negotiation work; never hourly |
| Big Four consultancy | Separate from the vendor; many firms hold technology alliance or implementation relationships | Worth checking if the same firm delivers your implementation or managed services | Broad cloud and FinOps skills; depth on commit terms varies by team | Usually time and materials or day rates |
| Google partner or reseller | Paid through Google partner programs, resale margin or funded services | Earns more when your commitment grows | Deep product and technical knowledge | Often bundled into resale pricing or funded by vendor programs |
| Your own team | Complete | None, though internal growth plans can inflate the forecast | Knows the workloads best, but rarely sees how other estates structure CUDs | Staff time only |
We hold no Google partner status and take no resale margin, so structure choices and commit sizing serve your economics alone.
Optimization work runs on a fixed fee, scoped to the work and agreed up front. Where the engagement includes negotiating the commit agreement, that part can run on a success fee instead: 25 percent of what we save you. You keep 75 percent, and if we save nothing you pay nothing.
We never bill by the hour. A fixed fee covers all four workstreams, up to four advisory calls and email support.
For continuous oversight of a multi year commitment, Vendor Shield runs as an annual subscription.
Three published Google Cloud engagements, each with the numbers stated on its case study.
A US digital media company cut its combined Google Cloud and Workspace bill 22 percent by fixing an overcommitted CUD, idle seats and uncached egress.
✓ Published case studyA New York professional services firm moved stranded resource based CUDs to a spend based model, governed BigQuery and cut its run rate 20 percent in five weeks.
✓ Published case studyLuxury DigMedia rebuilt its CUD posture against the sustained use baseline, and the combined buyer side position delivered a 22 percent reduction on Google Cloud.
For the structure decisions, read our resource versus flexible CUD comparison and the GCP committed use discount guide.
A fixed fee, scoped to the work and agreed up front, and we never bill by the hour. If the engagement includes negotiating the commit agreement, that part can run on a success fee of 25 percent of what we save you instead.
Resource based CUDs commit to specific machine resources; spend based CUDs commit dollars, with more flexibility at different discount levels. The right choice varies per workload profile, and defaults routinely choose wrong.
By testing on demand against editions using your actual query patterns. The wrong choice can double the analytics bill, and the portfolio workstream delivers the verdict with the math.
Yes. Sustained use applies automatically to some workloads, and CUDs replace it on committed resources, so committing those workloads can waste the overlap. The mapping shows where commitments add value and where they duplicate it.
No change is made without your platform team. Recommendations come from utilization data with headroom stated, and savings come from measured idle capacity and structural choices, not from risk.
The consumption baseline lands within 10 business days of complete data, and a typical engagement closes in six to ten weeks. The US media company in our case studies went from scoping to a signed CUD term in four months.
Billing exports, the commitment inventory, contracts and commit terms, BigQuery usage patterns for the pricing analysis, and the Workspace contract if seats are in scope.
Yes. We are 100 percent buyer side, with zero vendor affiliations, no reseller agreements and no referral fees. We hold no Google partner status, so structure choices serve your economics alone.
Waste out, CUDs structured deliberately, BigQuery priced right, and the commit negotiated from evidence.
One letter a month. Negotiation moves, audit signals, and price book shifts.