Microsoft Co-Op funding is designed to help Microsoft Partners invest in marketing and growth, but in practice, much of it goes unused, or is applied to activity that doesn’t drive the biggest impact. Not because Partners don’t value it, but because uncertainty around eligibility, Partner Centre processes, and the risk of claim rejection makes otherwise sensible decisions feel exposed.
Microsoft Co-Op funding is widely available and yet a surprising amount of it goes unused.
As a Microsoft Partner, it’s likely you know there’s funding available. You’re probably eligible for some of it. And yet… it often goes unused.
Not because you don’t need marketing support.
Not because you don’t have ideas.
But because actually using Co-Op funding can feel opaque, technical, and slightly risky, especially once you log into Partner Centre and try to work out what counts, what doesn’t, and how much evidence is “enough”.
As Rob Smith from our new strategic partner Pargentic puts it:
“Most Partners aren’t short of funding. They’re short of confidence in how to use it without creating problems later.”
We see this all the time.
“It’s not that Partners don’t care. It’s that the system is complicated”
Rob works with Microsoft Partners every day, helping them navigate incentives, funding rules, and the realities behind Partner Centre.
What he sees time and again is partners blaming themselves for something that’s largely structural.
“Partners often assume they’re missing something obvious. In reality, Partner Centre is complex. It’s designed to cover a huge range of activities, regions, and partner types.”
For founders and marketers already under pressure, that complexity creates hesitation:
- What if we choose the wrong activity?
- What if we spend the money and can’t claim it back?
- What if Microsoft asks questions we can’t answer later?
So, funding sits there. Unused.
The problem with “big” marketing ideas
Another pattern Rob sees regularly is Partners swinging between two extremes:
- Doing nothing, because it feels too difficult to get started
- Over-scoping, because they assume bigger = better
Both come with risk.
“Where Partners often run into trouble is when they jump straight into large, loosely defined campaigns, especially if the activity isn’t clearly tied to a Microsoft solution or workload.”
This is where marketing can accidentally make things harder rather than easier.
From a funding perspective, the safest activities tend to be:
- clearly executed
- well-defined
- tied to a specific outcome
- easy to evidence afterwards
Which is often at odds with how marketing is sold.
Why content can work, when it’s done properly
Used carefully, content is actually one of the more sensible ways to apply Co-Op funding.
But only when it’s treated as execution, not theory.
Rob is clear on this point:
“Content works best when it’s clearly published, clearly positioned, and clearly linked to what Microsoft actually sells. Where claims fall down is when activity feels vague or unfinished.”
In other words:
- live beats planned
- specific beats broad
- coherence beats volume
That’s as true for funding as it is for marketing.
The real risk isn’t rejection, it’s rework
One of the stresses around Co-Op isn’t just whether a claim is approved, but how much internal time it takes to get there.
Rework, missing evidence, or unclear positioning all cost effort, often long after the marketing activity itself has finished.
That’s why Rob sees value in marketing teams and Co-Op specialists working together:
“When marketing activity is sense-checked early, before anything goes live, it reduces avoidable issues later. You’re not trying to retrofit eligibility after the fact.”
That distinction matters.
It’s not about guarantees.
It’s about reducing unnecessary risk.
A clearer way to approach Co-Op funded marketing
For most Microsoft Partners, the safest path looks something like this:
- start with a contained piece of executed activity
- learn what works for you, commercially and operationally
- build confidence before scaling
Not because bigger ideas are wrong, but because confidence compounds.
As Rob puts it:
“The Partners who do this well don’t rush. They build a rhythm they can stand behind, internally and externally. They know what they have, and what they want to achieve, and they plan ahead to make it work for them.”
That’s when funding stops feeling like a hurdle and starts feeling like support.
Where this leaves marketing teams
If you’re a Microsoft Partner founder or marketer reading this and thinking:
“We know there’s funding available, we just don’t want to get this wrong.”
The goal isn’t to extract every available pound.
It’s to use funding in a way you can explain, evidence, and repeat.
That’s what reduces stress, and regret.
Why Bright Star’s working with Pargentic
Over time, it’s become clear that many of the challenges our Microsoft Partner clients face aren’t purely marketing problems, or purely funding problems:
They sit in between.
That’s why we’ve partnered with Rob and the team at Pargentic.
We focus on executing Demand Generation content that’s practical, audience-first, and designed to be used.
The Pargentic team bring specialist perspective on how that activity is typically assessed later in Partner Centre and at claim stage.
The aim isn’t to promise outcomes or shortcuts.
It’s to give Microsoft Partners we work with more clarity upfront, reduce avoidable issues later, and make the whole process feel more manageable.
Working with Bright Star
We work with Microsoft Partners to deliver executed Demand Generation activity designed to be used, evidenced, and claimed, alongside specialists Pargentic to reduce avoidable issues at claim stage.
Not to promise approvals.
Not to shortcut the system.
But to help Microsoft Partners move forward carefully and confidently.
If you’re thinking about using Co-Op funding for marketing and want to do it in a way you can stand behind, you can read more about how we approach Demand Generation here.
