Full narration of the briefing. Click a section heading to jump the player to that moment.
Before this carrier said a word about price, it built one table. Two columns per cloud: what the contract entitles, and what is actually active. That is the entire exercise, and it is the foundation of everything that follows in this negotiation. Not a maturity assessment, not a licence optimisation programme, not a tool purchase.
Two columns, seven rows, pulled from systems the company already owned. It took days, not months. And every commercial lever we get to in part five traces back to a line in that table, because a number you can evidence behaves completely differently in a negotiation from a number you assert.
Here is what it showed. Sales Cloud, named user, four thousand entitled against three thousand four hundred and twenty active. Service Cloud, also four thousand entitled, three thousand one hundred and eighty active. Marketing Cloud on a contact based metric, two and a half million entitled against one point eight two million.
Experience Cloud on external logins, two hundred and fifty thousand a month entitled against a hundred and forty thousand. Communications Cloud, six hundred named users entitled, a hundred and eighty active. MuleSoft, two hundred thousand consumption credits against a hundred and eighteen thousand used. Tableau, two hundred creator seats against a hundred and seventy five.
Notice that every cloud carries a different metric, which is why one utilisation number for Salesforce means nothing.
Take the two largest lines together. Sales Cloud and Service Cloud, eight thousand seats entitled, and the active count sits eight hundred and twenty below it. Those seats are not a compliance problem, and it is important to say that clearly, because it changes how you use the finding. Nobody is out of contract.
The carrier bought them and is entitled to them. They are a commercial fact: eight hundred and twenty seats of a fixed annual fee, renewing into a new three year term at a fourteen percent uplift, for people who do not exist. Under a true forward only structure, nothing about the agreement would ever have surfaced that on its own.
Then look for the outlier, because there almost always is one, and it is rarely the biggest line. Industries Communications Cloud: six hundred named users entitled, a hundred and eighty active. Thirty percent utilisation on a specialist industry cloud that the carrier had bought with a genuine plan in mind. Plans change, sponsors move, and the licence line stays exactly where it was.
That single row became the descope in part five, and it was worth more than several percent of negotiation on the headline rate. If you only have time to look at one thing before your renewal, look for the specialist cloud with the confident business case and the quiet user count.
The consumption lines need reading differently, and MuleSoft is the example. Two hundred thousand credits entitled, a hundred and eighteen thousand consumed. Fifty nine percent. On a seat you can point at the empty chair.
On a credit allotment there is nothing to point at, which is why these lines drift for years without anyone noticing. And the shape matters: a fixed allotment that expires is not the same instrument as a pool you draw down against actual use, even at the same headline number. Part five turns that distinction into twenty two percent of the MuleSoft annual line, and the only reason the conversation was possible was that somebody had read the meter first.
Everything in that table came from systems the carrier already had. Active user counts from Salesforce login history rather than from the user list, because a user record is not evidence of use. The contact count from Marketing Cloud itself. External logins from the Experience Cloud report.
Credit consumption from the MuleSoft usage view. Two practical rules. Pull every source on the same date, so the table describes one estate at one moment rather than an average of several. And file it, dated, before you open the commercial conversation, because a number produced after the negotiation starts is read as a negotiating position, while the same number produced before it is read as evidence.
And understand what the table actually buys you, because it is not the saving itself. It is specificity. Walking in and asking for a better price invites one response, which is a slightly better price. Walking in with six hundred entitled against a hundred and eighty active on a named cloud invites a completely different conversation, because now there is something concrete to solve and the account team can build an internal case around it.
Vague pressure produces vague movement. This carrier arrived with seven specific findings, and each one turned into a lever. Next part, the other half of the position: what fifty seven comparable agreements say the price should actually be.
Redress Compliance works on contingency: our fee is 25 percent of what we save you. Nothing saved, nothing paid. Independent, buyer side only, never vendor funded. Want Redress to contact you? Reach out and we respond the same day.
Talk to a Salesforce negotiator