Why Ticket History Matters in Support Agreements
Many organizations renew their Microsoft Unified Support at a level beyond what they truly need. Microsoft often recommends support tiers based on your spend or company size rather than actual support usage, which can lead to overspending.
By examining your support ticket history, you gain hard evidence of how much support you actually use. Support ticket analysis reveals the volume and severity of issues you faced, helping you determine the appropriate support tier.
If your ticket volume is low or mostly minor issues, a high-tier (and high-cost) support package may be overkill. In contrast, consistent critical incidents might justify advanced support. Read our complete guide to Negotiating Microsoft Unified Support Agreements.
In short, analyzing past tickets lets you align your support level with reality instead of relying on Microsoft’s generic (and often upsold) model.
Microsoft’s default tiering assumes a one-size-fits-all approach—often bundling in proactive services and 24/7 coverage you might not fully utilize.
CIOs and IT managers who review support usage frequently find they’re paying for features they barely use. Ticket history provides a clear picture of your actual needs.
It puts you, the customer, in control: armed with data, you can push back on upsells.
Rather than blindly accepting Microsoft’s recommendation (which tends to err on the side of selling more), you can right-size your agreement. The result is a support contract that meets your requirements without waste.
Simply put, your historical support tickets are the key to optimizing Unified Support costs and ensuring you only pay for what you need.
Collecting and Categorizing Ticket Data
The first step in right-sizing is to gather 12–24 months of support ticket logs from your records or Microsoft’s support portal. Two years of data offer a solid baseline, accounting for any seasonal spikes or anomalies.
Once collected, categorize the tickets to understand their nature.
Separate incidents by severity and type:
- Critical break-fix incidents: e.g., outages, major system down events (Severity A). These demand urgent response.
- Advisory or how-to requests: non-critical queries or requests for guidance, best practices, or design help. These might include “advisory” cases or proactive support calls (like planning a deployment).
- Low-priority issues: minor bugs, cosmetic problems, or user issues that have minimal impact (often Severity C or low impact).
Within these categories, note how many incidents truly required Microsoft’s help. Identify cases that could have been solved internally with existing resources or a knowledge base.
For example, was a support ticket raised for a known issue that a quick internal search could have answered? Were there password reset or configuration questions that your help desk could handle? Counting such instances is eye-opening — it shows opportunities to handle certain issues in-house next time.
By categorizing and scrutinizing tickets, you’ll see exactly what you used your support for, which is the foundation for any adjustment to your support level.
Read more, Unified Support Pricing 101: Understand Your Cost Drivers.
Identifying Usage Patterns and Gaps
With your categorized ticket data in hand, look for patterns and areas of misalignment. This usage review can spotlight where you’re over-invested or under-protected:
- Underused services: Determine if you paid for support features that you barely used. For instance, Microsoft’s Unified Support often includes proactive services like training workshops, planning assistance, or health checks. How many of those “advisory” or proactive hours did you actually consume? If the data shows you scheduled a few (or none) of the included workshops, that’s a red flag that you’re overpaying for unused benefits. Many organizations discover they utilize only a small fraction of the proactive services bundled in their plan.
- Recurring high-severity incidents: Identify any consistent patterns in critical tickets. For example, do you see repeated high-severity outages each quarter? Or a cluster of serious incidents around a specific system? If you have frequent mission-critical issues that stretch your internal team, this pattern might justify maintaining (or even upgrading) certain support elements. On the other hand, if severe incidents are rare or non-existent in your history, you might not need the ultra-aggressive response times of an expensive tier.
- Support timing and coverage gaps: Look at when your incidents occur. Are most tickets logged during business hours, or do you regularly need 24/7 after-hours support? If your history shows nearly all issues happened 9–5 on weekdays, paying a premium for 24/7 coverage could be excessive. Conversely, if a few critical incidents happened on a Sunday at 2 AM, note that pattern as well when assessing your needs.
By identifying these usage patterns and gaps, you can build a profile of your actual support needs. Maybe you find your team mainly opened low-priority tickets and only a couple of urgent ones — a sign that a basic support level would suffice.
Or you might notice you’re using lots of reactive support but hardly any of the advisory services, indicating a mismatch in what you’re buying.
This data-driven profile is far more accurate than Microsoft’s generic support model, which assumes every customer will use all the bells and whistles.
It highlights exactly where you’re not getting value (unused services) and where you might need more focus (recurring problem areas).
Armed with this insight, you’re ready to adjust your support level based on evidence, not assumptions.
Adjusting Support Levels Based on Evidence
Now that you understand your actual support usage, you can adjust your support level (and costs) to fit.
The evidence from your ticket history makes a compelling case for changes like these:
- Downgrade if volume is low: If you found you had, say, <50 support incidents in the past year, it’s a strong indicator that a lower-tier support plan may suffice. Microsoft’s Core Unified Support (the base level) might cover your needs at a fraction of the cost of the Advanced or Performance tiers. Core support still provides unlimited break-fix incidents; the main differences are slightly slower response times and fewer extras. But if your organization only raises a few tickets a month with no around-the-clock emergencies, those Core-level response times are likely acceptable. In practice, a company with modest ticket volume and no frequent severity-1 crises can safely save money by using Core support.
- Eliminate unused extras (like TAM or workshops): Check how much you engaged with your Technical Account Manager (TAM) or Customer Success Account Manager under your current plan. Did you leverage that person’s expertise regularly, or was interaction infrequent? If TAM usage was minimal (for example, you utilized under 20% of the TAM’s available efforts or hardly ever contacted them), consider cutting that from your package. Advanced and Performance tiers include a dedicated TAM, which you pay for in the bundle. If your team isn’t leaning on that resource, you could downgrade to a tier without a TAM (or explore negotiating a package where the TAM role is scaled back to save cost). Similarly, if your analysis shows you didn’t use the proactive training days or planning services, you have room to remove or reduce those. Perhaps you keep the TAM for strategic guidance but drop other proactive services you don’t need. The goal is to stop paying for support features that provide little value to your organization.
- Customize based on patterns: Use the patterns you identified to negotiate a tailored support arrangement. For example, suppose you observed that all your serious incidents were related to Azure. In that case, you might negotiate for strong Azure-specific support but scale back on other product support you rarely call on. If you rarely open tickets for, say, Dynamics 365, you might not need the full coverage for that product family that Microsoft’s standard bundle includes. Tailoring could also mean choosing a lower base tier and purchasing one or two add-on services to cover specific needs (if Microsoft allows à la carte add-ons). The data gives you confidence to say, “We only needed X, Y, and Z from support, and not the rest.” By adjusting your support level to match those needs, you’ll likely trim a significant portion of the cost while still sleeping well at night.
In essence, let the evidence dictate the support tier and services. Your usage profile might show that a previously upsold “advanced” package isn’t warranted.
Or it might confirm you do need a certain premium feature, but not others. Align the contract to cover your real requirements, nothing more, nothing less.
For more insights, see ” Scope Control: Removing Unneeded Services from Unified Support.
Negotiation Tactics Using Ticket History
Once you’ve determined how your support level should change, it’s time to negotiate with Microsoft (or your support vendor) using your ticket data as leverage.
Here are some tactics to employ:
- Lead with the numbers: Present the hard data from your ticket history when discussing renewals or changes. For example, “We opened 40 tickets last year, and only two were severity-1. We didn’t use any of the five advisory workshops in our plan.” Concrete figures like these challenge any blanket recommendation to go with a higher (more expensive) tier. Instead of arguing feelings or hypotheticals, you’re showing Microsoft a factual usage report. This puts you in a stronger position to demand a better-aligned (and often cheaper) support level. Vendors have a hard time arguing with evidence from their own support logs.
- Challenge the recommended tier: Don’t accept Microsoft’s suggested support tier at face value—especially if it seems too high for your needs. Microsoft reps might propose a tier based on your total spend or a “typical” company of your size (often Performance or Advanced for larger enterprises), aiming to upsell coverage. Use your data to push back: if your support usage review shows mostly low-priority tickets and few critical issues, question why you would need the top-tier plan. For instance, “Last year we had no after-hours emergencies. Why pay for 24/7 premier coverage?” By questioning the fit, you open the door to downgrading or getting concessions.
- Request removal of low-value services: Your ticket analysis likely revealed some services in your support package that added little or no value. Maybe it’s the proactive “training days” that your staff never scheduled, or a monthly review meeting that didn’t provide new insights. During negotiations, specifically ask to remove these components from the scope (or at least not pay for them). For example, “We didn’t use the 10 Azure workshops included in our current plan, so we’d like to exclude those going forward and see a cost reduction.” Microsoft might not normally offer à la carte pricing publicly, but when faced with a customer showing unused services, they may be willing to adjust the quote. Even if they technically keep the service in the contract, you can negotiate a lower price by highlighting that you won’t be consuming certain benefits.
- Tie renewal costs to actual usage trends: Another tactic is to focus the negotiation on your real usage trajectory instead of Microsoft’s forecast (which often assumes growth and encourages a higher tier). If your support ticket volume has been steady or declining, bring that up: “Our support cases dropped 15% year-over-year thanks to system improvements. We expect similar or lower volume next year.” Use that to argue against any automatic cost increase or upsell. Essentially, you’re saying the support agreement should scale to your usage, not just your product spend.In some cases, you might negotiate a flexible arrangement — for example, agreeing that if certain usage metrics stay low, you remain at a lower tier or get a credit. While Microsoft’s standard Unified Support is a fixed annual contract, customers have negotiated creative terms by showing data. Even a simple price cap or a one-tier downgrade option at renewal time can be possible if you justify it with usage evidence.
- Be willing to walk or consider alternatives: Although the focus here is on working within the Microsoft Unified Support framework, don’t forget you have options. Third-party support providers or pay-per-incident consultancy services are available. Let Microsoft know you’re aware of these alternatives, especially if they aren’t responsive to your data-driven requests. Sometimes, just signaling that you have a quote from an alternative support vendor that better matches your actual needs can motivate Microsoft to concede on price or terms. Your ticket history is your proof that you could take your business elsewhere with confidence, since you know exactly what you need support for.
Using these tactics, you shift the negotiation dynamic. It’s no longer Microsoft telling you what support you should buy; it’s you telling Microsoft what support you need, with the numbers to back it up.
This approach often leads to a more reasonable contract and cost, as Microsoft would prefer to retain your business on adjusted terms than lose it entirely.
Don’t negotiate blind. Benchmarking Support Fees: Are You Overpaying Microsoft?.
Example Scenarios – Right-Sizing in Action
To illustrate the impact of using ticket history to right-size support, let’s look at a few hypothetical scenarios:
- Mid-Market Firm Saves 25% by Downgrading: A mid-sized company with ~40 support cases a year was on the Advanced Unified Support plan. Their ticket analysis showed very few critical incidents and almost no use of proactive services. At renewal, they leveraged this data to downgrade to Core support. The result was about a 25% reduction in annual support fees. Importantly, they noticed no decline in service quality because their actual needs never required the higher-tier features in the first place.
- Enterprise Trims Fat but Keeps Key Features: A large enterprise client was on the Performance tier, paying for every bell and whistle (a dedicated TAM, onsite support days, numerous workshops). Upon reviewing two years of tickets, they found they heavily relied on their Technical Account Manager for strategic guidance, so they valued keeping that relationship. However, they also discovered they left most of the included training workshops unused and had many proactive credits unspent. They renegotiated their support agreement to remove the unused workshops and excessive proactive hours from the package, focusing on retaining the TAM and reactive support coverage. By right-sizing the scope, this company significantly reduced costs while still getting the high-touch support they actually used.
- Seasonal Business Aligns Support to Peak Demand: A retail business noticed a clear seasonal pattern in its support tickets: the vast majority of incidents (and all critical ones) occurred during the holiday shopping season. During off-peak months, they had very few support needs. Armed with this insight, the company negotiated a more flexible support arrangement. They opted for a lower-tier support plan for most of the year and arranged for enhanced support coverage during Q4. In practice, this meant paying for a baseline Core support year-round and arranging a temporary upgrade or additional resources (through Microsoft or a third-party provider) during the busy season to handle the surge in critical issues. This creative approach ensured they weren’t overpaying in slow periods, yet they had the robust support required when business spiked.
Each of these scenarios demonstrates how analyzing ticket history translates into tangible savings and a more tailored support plan.
Whether it’s downgrading a tier, carving out unused services, or structuring the contract around business cycles, the common theme is leveraging data to spend smarter.
Checklist – How to Right-Size with Ticket Data
Use the following checklist to guide your support optimization efforts:
- Collect your ticket history: Gather 1–2 years of support ticket data (from Microsoft Services Hub or your internal tracking). Aim for a comprehensive log of all incidents and requests in that period.
- Categorize by severity and type: Break down tickets into categories such as critical vs. non-critical, and reactive break-fix vs. advisory/support guidance. Note how many were high-priority emergencies, and how many were low-priority or “how-to” queries.
- Compare against your current support tier: Review what your support plan includes (response times, 24/7 coverage, dedicated manager, proactive credits) and ask if your ticket profile truly requires those features. For example, did you use the 24/7 hotline, or could issues wait until morning? Did you engage the Technical Account Manager regularly or hardly at all?
- Identify unused services or low utilization: List out any support entitlements you paid for but didn’t fully use — such as training days, workshops, health checks, or fast response SLAs that were never invoked. This highlights immediate areas for cutting or negotiation.
- Negotiate a scope aligned to demand: Armed with this data, approach Microsoft to adjust your support agreement. Remove or reduce the unused components, downgrade to a tier that fits your actual volume, or ask for a custom plan that matches your usage. Ensure the new contract focuses on what you do need (e.g., reactive problem resolution) without paying for what you don’t need.
Following this checklist will ensure you leave no stone unturned. It forces a thorough review of support usage and provides a clear roadmap for negotiation.
The outcome should be a leaner, more efficient support contract that aligns with your organization’s reality.
Five Expert Recommendations
To wrap up, here are five expert tips for continuously right-sizing your Microsoft support:
- Always analyze two years of ticket history before renewal. Don’t go into a support renewal blind. Dive into at least 24 months of data on what support you used. This longer view smooths out any fluke periods and arms you with facts to make informed decisions (and counter any sales pressure).
- Use low utilization as leverage to drop services. If certain support features or benefits show low utilization (e.g., you’ve used only 20% of your included proactive hours, or opened far fewer cases than expected), bring this up and demand to remove or discount those in the next contract. Let the data justify why you shouldn’t pay for what you’re not using.
- Negotiate a tailored scope instead of a bundle. Remember that the standard Unified Support tiers are bundles that can be flexible if you push. Don’t be afraid to ask for a custom mix. For example, you might request core reactive support plus a dedicated TAM as an add-on, if that’s all you really need. The key is to break away from the mindset that you must accept the predefined package — tailor it.
- Push for transparency in Microsoft’s cost calculations. Microsoft’s Unified Support pricing is notoriously opaque, calculated as a percentage of your software spend. Insist that Microsoft explain how it arrived at your price. Verify the numbers using your own data. Sometimes customers find mistakes or overestimations in how their usage was tallied. By demanding transparency, you can catch errors and negotiate from a position of understanding. (For instance, ensure they’re not counting licenses you’ve retired or double-charging for certain subscriptions in the support fee.)
- Document usage-aligned terms in the contract. If you succeed in negotiating changes — such as dropping a service or agreeing to a price reduction due to low usage — make sure those terms are explicitly written into the contract. Also consider adding language that ties future renewals to actual usage or performance. For example, include a clause that allows you to adjust the support level if your ticket volume stays below a certain threshold. Getting it in writing protects you and sets a precedent for more rational, usage-based discussions next time around.
By following these expert recommendations, you’ll create a cycle of continuous optimization for your support services. Rather than set-and-forget (and possibly overspend), you’ll approach each year proactively: reviewing, adjusting, and negotiating so that your support agreement evolves with your needs.
Ready to right-size your support? Don’t wait until a budget crunch forces you to act. Start gathering your ticket data now and benchmark your current support utilization. The insights you uncover can translate directly into cost savings and a support experience tailored to your organization.
Remember, you have more negotiating power than you might think — especially when you come prepared with facts. By taking a buyer-first approach and being skeptical of upsells, you can turn your Microsoft support contract from a costly safety net into a well-calibrated service that fits like a glove.
Your IT team gets the help they need, when they need it, and you get the satisfaction of not paying a dirham more than necessary. It all starts with your ticket history – use it to take control of your support costs today.
Read about our Microsoft Negotiation Services
