Forum Discussion
Annual/monthly price increase per 1st of April 2025
Hi Microsoft, Besides the discussion on the price increase itself: November 2024 announcements - Partner Center announcements | Microsoft Learn I'm wondering how this "standardizing the billi...
Nice name ;)
Yes, that's clear. That you can't switch billing plan mid-term. But that does not answer my question; will triannual terms with monthly/annual billing also have a +5% price increase? That's not mentioned in the announcement or FAQ.
its time to read between the lines probably:
with no mention of "annual/annual" or triennial with either annual or triennial billing i would say these don't have the 5% up.
First you paid extra for the 1M term with monthly billing (for flexibility)
Now you pay extra for wanting to pay an 1Y term monthly instead of upfront in full.
No penalties for annual upfront payments of 3Y terms (yet)
Just my 2%
Regards,
Martijn
I do agree on the notion, and indeed there is no mentions of it all.
But I am wary about making assumptions for this, as it's still Microsoft. They often miss half of their own story and only afterwards that they see notice it.
So I'm still keeping the option open that Triannual terms with Monthly/Annual billing can still get a +5% price increase as well, until Microsoft confirms or declines it.
I feel the purpose from Microsoft is to encourage annual upfront payments. Perhaps this is to reduce a perceived or real problem where customers commit to annual (or triennial) and then fail to pay monthly. Causing issues more for partners than Microsoft.
I expect therefore that triennial paid monthly will incur the 5% price premium. With no change if the customer pays upfront for the full 3-year term, or if they pay annually.
Personally, we prefer not to offer monthly payment terms for triennial commitments as it places too much risk.
I still do not agree with the 5% price premium for annual (and assuming triennial too) paid monthly. Personally, I think Microsoft are taking advantage under an ill-fitting guise about flexibility.
It is a shame Microsoft cannot communicate their true reasoning or problem they think they are solving with this.
This I also fully agree with point of view. Would be nice to have some insights on why and what Microsoft is trying to achieve. "standardizing the billing structure" is of course a bit of a lame excuse...
