Unified for Partners (UfP)
Hello! A few months ago at Microsoft Ignite, Dan Rippey shared an update on The Future of Partner Support - Customer + Partner + Microsoft. Dan brought 'Unified for Partners' center stage and mentioned that Microsoft is going into listening mode and taking partner feedback. It's easy to share feedback with Microsoft by visiting booths at Ignite. What are some ways partners can share feedback with Dan and others at Microsoft year round? For reference, we have a signed NDA with Microsoft if that helps! My first thought are the two community calls that were running for most of 2025. They were the CSP Technical Training Series and Microsoft Partner Community Q&A Call. However, I don't see any upcoming events scheduled... Thanks! -jonPartner Enablement Calls for CSP Partners!
Microsoft invites you to our CSP Partner Enablement Series, where we’ve combined the CSP Community call and the CSP Technical Training call and into a single, streamlined call. This new format brings together high priority partner updates, technical/adoption enablement, and best practices into one cohesive experience, making it easier for partners to stay informed and prepare for change. You are welcome to access old calls or join future ones! CSP Partner Enablement series
Transitioning from Direct Bill to Indirect Reseller
I am sharing our experience regarding transition from DB to IR started 4 months ago to understand the better approach to manage our partner centers in the future. We started transitioning from Direct Bill to Indirect Reseller in November 2025. We currently have: one PGA with two different associated CSP PLAs: Direct Bill PLA and Indirect Reseller PLA. We operate with two different Partner Centers: "first" PC used for the PGA and the Direct Bill PLA "second" used for the Indirect Reseller PLA At the moment, everything is working correctly, as we are actively transferring customers from the Direct Bill model to the Indirect Reseller model, Incentives for the Indirect Reseller (PLA IR) are being received correctly, designations are managed under the PGA tenant, ecc. Regarding TTM, we exceed the 1M‑dollar requirement, but only at the PGA level, as it currently includes both DB and IR revenue. Do you know whether Microsoft requires the 1M‑dollar threshold to be met at the PGA level by combining DB and IR revenue, or if only DB revenue counts for maintaining Direct Bill status? Our other question concerns the end of the customers migration, considering that the Direct Bill PLA will eventually become restricted or revoked. Whether it is recommended to continue using two separate Partner Centers, first for Membership, Incentives, Designations, Earnings, and overall partner management and the second exclusively for CSP Tier-2 customer management. Or whether you suggest alternative or better scenarios for managing the Partner Center structure once the transition is fully completed. Tks for feedback and information. Fabrizio
URGENT: CSP Direct Bill Termination due to Revenue Discrepancy / Visibility Gap Support Exhausted
We’re currently working through a CSP Direct Bill eligibility review and have run into a discrepancy that we’re hoping other partners may have experience with. Our organization has been operating under CSP Direct Bill and, based on Partner Center indicators and prior guidance from Microsoft, we believed we were meeting the ~$1M TTM revenue requirement. However, we were recently informed by Microsoft that our Direct Bill revenue is being calculated at approximately $892K, below the threshold. The key issue appears to be related to revenue classification: Microsoft indicated that some of our revenue may be attributed to CSP Indirect Reseller (IR), even though we do not actively transact through a distributor. All licensing is billed directly by Microsoft, and we can provide invoices to support this. We’ve also been told that when tenants are associated with both Direct Bill and Indirect models, the 12-month revenue breakdown is not visible in Partner Center. Microsoft has acknowledged that this visibility gap exists and that partners cannot currently see the same classification used internally. Our case is currently under review with Microsoft, but we’re trying to better understand: Has anyone encountered a situation where tenants were classified as indirect without actively selling through a distributor? Are there any reliable ways to identify which customers or subscriptions may be tagged as indirect? Has anyone successfully reconciled or corrected this type of revenue classification issue? Any insights or similar experiences would be greatly appreciated, especially if you’ve navigated this during a Direct Bill eligibility review. Thanks in advance.
Microsoft SMB Copilot Bundles — CSP Partners Undercut on Pricing. Are Others Experiencing This?
I want to raise something that's creating real problems for us as a CSP partner, and I suspect we're not alone. Microsoft recently launched the SMB Copilot Business bundles — including a M365 Business Premium + Copilot Business bundle at 25% off. Great initiative. The problem? Through eCommerce (direct), customers can purchase this bundle from 1 seat. Through CSP, the bundle has a 10-seat minimum. This is causing a very specific and common issue: we have customers with well over 10 seats on Business Premium who want to trial Copilot with a small group first — say 3 to 8 users — before committing to a wider rollout. That's a completely reasonable approach. But because CSP enforces a 10-seat minimum on the bundle, we can't offer them the discounted pricing for a small initial rollout. Meanwhile, they can see that if they went direct with Microsoft, they'd get 25% off from just 1 seat. The result? Our customers are asking us why we — their trusted Microsoft Partner — are charging them more than Microsoft itself. Some are outright accusing us of trying to rip them off. These aren't micro-businesses slipping through the cracks. These are established customers with legitimate deployments who simply want to pilot Copilot sensibly before scaling up. We've raised this with Microsoft and the justification we received boils down to: the direct channel serves even the smallest customers, while CSP requires a 10-seat minimum to "ensure sufficient scale and support for partner-led deals" and to "protect partner business interests." With respect, this doesn't protect our interests at all. It actively undermines them. Here's what's actually happening: • Customers who want to trial Copilot on a handful of seats see a better deal going direct and question why they're paying a partner at all • It erodes trust in the partner relationship — the very thing Microsoft says it wants to strengthen • It creates an incentive for customers to move licensing to the direct channel for the trial, fragmenting their management and making our job harder • We're left in the impossible position of either absorbing margin to match the direct price, or losing the customer's confidence • Ironically, it discourages the very Copilot adoption Microsoft is pushing — customers who would happily trial on a few seats are put off by being told they need to commit to 10 or more through us We're not asking for special treatment. We're asking for parity. If Microsoft believes 25% off is the right price for this bundle, let us offer it to our customers too — regardless of how many seats they want to start with. We're the ones providing the onboarding, the training, the support, and the ongoing management. We shouldn't be penalised for it. Is anyone else running into this with customers who want to trial Copilot on fewer than 10 seats? How are you handling the conversation when they come to you asking why Microsoft is cheaper direct? Would love to hear how others are navigating this, and whether there's any appetite to push back on this collectively.Partner Support Services Designation Public Preview Deck + Nomination Form
There is a new Partner Support Services Designation in Public Preview. Partners who earn a Support Services designation will be given access to Microsoft tools and resources to enhance their support capabilities. Badging for the designation will help partners differentiate their organizations with customers and in the Microsoft commercial marketplace. Read more here.Character limited for Partner Support Ticket notes
When updating a partner center support ticket from the Partner Center (https://partner.microsoft.com/dashboard/v2/support/servicerequests) However, the textbox for adding a new note from the portal has a max length of 80 characters. Has anyone else noticed this? I shared this observation with the partner center support team a while ago and learned that the portal is working as intended. The web portal should only be used for adding short notes. For longer notes, partners should update the ticket via email. I hoped my feedback might reach someone that could make this improvement to the partner experience, but it's taking longer than expected. Has anyone else noticed this issue, or am I the only partner that finds this behavior less than ideal? On more than one occasion I have modified the HTML using the browser dev tools by changing the maxlength="80" to "maxlength="800" and didn't have any trouble adding the longer note. Has anyone else run into this challenge and used the a workaround like the one I used?
