Summary
It started with a poll on LinkedIn, which produced fascinating results. When posed with whether a software reseller, a Microsoft partner, a company that is measured on sales, can provide truly "impartial advice" about securing a cost-effective deal to a full extent, most resellers answered "it's complicated," whilst a surprising number of end clients confidently responded "yes."
While I commend the bravery of the resellers, the confidence of the end users puzzled me. What is the reason that organisations, particularly people working in procurement, don't always comprehend the nuances between truly impartial advice and guidance that comes with financial incentives attached?
The Problem with Reseller Advice
Most Microsoft partners employ skilled individuals who have a good understanding of licensing. Many Microsoft partner salespeople genuinely strive to assist their clients and offer valuable advice.
The problem, however, stems from the business model. Resellers make money when you spend more with Microsoft. They lose when you save.
Working within Microsoft's ecosystem for years also warps consultants' perspective. They develop professional deformation, becoming so immersed in Microsoft's way of thinking that they can't see alternatives.
We've tried hiring consultants from such firms. When I asked candidates to explain how they would optimise a deal, all I heard was licence sales talk. Their package offers appear quite efficient at first glance, but their understanding of "efficiency" is heavily influenced by how Microsoft perceives it. They don't comprehend that there are more opportunities beyond Microsoft's standard templates.
During Enterprise Agreement renewals, a Microsoft partner may recommend aggressive growth commitments to secure better terms from Microsoft. They might suggest CSP as an alternative or different commitment levels. But the conversation stays within Microsoft's framework. They won't explore whether you actually need those growth commitments at all, or whether a completely different approach might serve you better.
“Free” reseller advice is never truly free. It’s paid for through higher Microsoft spend and suboptimal deals.
The "free" advice compounds this issue. Microsoft partners don't routinely charge consulting fees upfront, so organisations assume they're getting free guidance. However, that advice is often paid for through higher-than-market licence prices and suboptimal deal structures. The consultation cost is diluted in your Microsoft spend.
Where Have All the Independents Gone?
Look at Gartner's latest Magic Quadrant for Software Asset Management Managed Services. Every single "Leader" category company is either a software reseller or owned by one. This wasn't always the case. Five years ago, genuinely independent providers competed alongside reseller-owned firms.
The top Software Asset Management providers in the Gartner’s latest research are all reseller-owned. True independence has vanished.
The consolidation happened as major resellers recognised that clients increasingly demand "independent" advice. Rather than compete against independent firms for advisory revenue, they simply bought them. Crayon acquired Anglepoint, Trustmarque bought Livingstone, and similar acquisitions eliminated much of the independent competition.
ITAM Forum board member George Arezina has publicly questioned this "lack of independent providers" in industry research, whilst some legal experts point to inherent conflicts of interest when advisory firms must report their findings back to software vendors. Finding genuinely independent Microsoft guidance has become difficult.
The Subtle Art of Biased Advice
The conflicts don't produce obviously terrible recommendations. Microsoft partners aren't vile. They aren't telling clients to buy software they don't need or pay retail prices when volume discounts exist. The bias is more sophisticated than that.
Resellers with consumption-based incentives tend to recommend aggressive Azure migration timelines that accelerate cloud spending. In licensing reviews, the same conservative approach leads to "compliance purchases" addressing problems which may not actually exist. When it comes to audit defence, strategies focus on compliance rather than challenging Microsoft's positions. Strategic technology decisions, meanwhile, consistently favour Microsoft-only solutions over hybrid approaches that might deliver better value.
This bias often goes unrecognised because the advice appears reasonable, as it usually is, albeit not being "the best". Microsoft partners present solid technical arguments and cite legitimate business benefits. The recommendations aren't wrong. They're just consistently tilted toward outcomes that benefit Microsoft's business model rather than optimising client costs.
Recognising True Independence
Independence in Microsoft advisory services hinges on several key tests. Financial relationships matter most. Does your advisor generate revenue from Microsoft sales, rebates, or partner incentives? Are they owned by an organisation with these financial ties? Do they have sales targets connected to Microsoft revenue? And a tricky one: are they billing you for their services based on the percentage of your spend or your savings?
Another telling question is, do you pay directly for the advice? Genuinely independent advisors charge consulting fees upfront. If your advisor provides "free" guidance, you're paying for it through inflated licence prices and suboptimal deals.
True independence means your advisor is paid by you, not Microsoft, and is free to challenge the vendor’s interests.
Your advisor's willingness to work against Microsoft's interests tests operational independence. A truly independent advisor will recommend non-Microsoft solutions when appropriate, help you negotiate aggressively even when that reduces Microsoft's revenue, suggest delaying purchases or reducing commitments if that serves you better, and challenge Microsoft's audit positions rather than accepting them.
Consider the contractual obligations too. Many advisors are bound by Microsoft partner agreements that influence their recommendations, required to report engagement results to Microsoft, or restricted from publicly criticising Microsoft policies that don't serve customer interests.
True independence means complete freedom to prioritise your objectives over Microsoft's revenue targets.
The Cost of Compromised Advice
The financial impact goes well beyond consulting fees. Independent advisors routinely achieve cost reductions of 20-40% on Microsoft Enterprise Agreement renewals. They do this not simply through aggressive negotiation tactics, but also by structuring agreements around actual usage patterns and genuine needs, rather than vendor growth assumptions and "scorecard" products like Copilot or M365 E5 that Microsoft prioritises for sales targets.
Audit defence situations show even starker differences. Independent advisors often reduce penalty exposure by 80% or more by challenging interpretations that Microsoft-aligned partners might accept as inevitable compliance costs (and I wish they didn't do it so eagerly).
These improvements compound across multi-year agreements. Cost differentials can reach millions in larger organisations. The hidden cost isn't just what you pay. It's also what you fail to save.
🖐 Protect your organisation from unfair audit costs. Discover: Microsoft Audit Defense.
The Strategic Choice Framework
Of course, you don't need to avoid Microsoft partners entirely. It would be rather unwise and inefficient. They bring legitimate value through deep product knowledge, established implementation processes, and relationships within Microsoft's sales organisation.
The key is understanding what type of advice you're purchasing. Need help implementing Microsoft's recommended solution efficiently? Certified Microsoft partners make perfect sense. Need someone to challenge Microsoft's recommendations and negotiate from a position of strength? You require genuinely independent advice.
The best results come from a dual approach: independent advisors for strategy, Microsoft partners for implementation.
Mature procurement professionals use both approaches. They engage independent advisors for strategic guidance and negotiation, then work with Microsoft partners for implementation and day-to-day management. This dual approach achieves the best of both worlds, avoiding the conflicts that arise from relying on Microsoft partners for strategic advice.
🖐 Gain leverage in your next deal. Learn more: Microsoft Enterprise Agreement Negotiation.
The Independence Imperative
As Microsoft is responsible for the largest IT spend in most organisations, the quality of your Microsoft licensing decisions will shape your technology costs for years. The advisor you choose for those decisions matters more than you might think.
Every major software vendor has built an ecosystem designed to maximise their revenue. Microsoft's partner programme is particularly sophisticated at aligning advisor incentives with vendor objectives rather than client outcomes.
Breaking free from this system requires deliberate action. Seek advisors who work outside Microsoft's financial ecosystem. Pay for advice directly rather than accepting "free" guidance. Demand recommendations that prioritise your objectives over Microsoft's quarterly targets.
Independence in advisory services delivers more than better deals. You get someone genuinely on your side when the stakes are highest.
Want Microsoft advice that's genuinely independent? We deliberately avoid selling licenses or cloud services to ensure our recommendations optimise your outcomes, not Microsoft's revenue.
Experience how truly independent guidance can transform your technology investments. Contact us now: