How do UK IT distributors evaluate Microsoft partner marketing agencies for Co-op funding?

Distributors sit right in the middle of that question. They're judged on how well their reseller base grows, and they've got a real interest in making sure Co-op-funded activity actually works and doesn't fall over at the claim stage.

So we wanted to set out, as plainly as we can, what UK IT distributors tend to look for when they assess a Microsoft partner marketing agency. We've drawn on what we see in our own work with the channel, and we've kept it practical.

The rest of this piece goes through each one, and why it matters more now than it did a year ago.

It's worth understanding the distributor's position first, because it explains nearly everything they look for. Your distributor has its own goals set by Microsoft, and in many cases it's passing a version of them down to you. If you hit yours, it gets closer to hitting its own.

Co-op-funded marketing that doesn't build pipeline, or a claim that gets rejected, is a loss on both sides. The partner loses the money, and the distributor loses the growth it was counting on. So when a distributor's channel marketing team looks at an agency, it's really asking whether that agency will help turn Microsoft investment into Microsoft revenue, without creating a compliance headache along the way.

This tends to be the first filter, and to be fair, it's a sensible one. A generalist B2B agency might produce lovely creative, but if it doesn't know the difference between a solution area and a specialisation, or why a CSP reseller and a direct partner might market differently, the distributor is going to spend time educating it.

We made a deliberate decision at Resultful to only proactively work with Microsoft partners. Yes, that means we turn some work away, but it also means we're not learning the ecosystem at our clients' expense. Distributors notice that sort of focus, because it shortens briefing, cuts down rework and leads to campaigns that sound like they come from someone inside the channel.

This is where a lot of agencies get caught out, because the rules moved quite a bit in July. Resultful's own FY27 Co-op guide explains that several separate FY26 activities have been folded into one, with direct mail, email, digital campaigns, websites, search and social now consolidated under Paid media with multi-touch campaign. In practice, under the old names you could claim a standalone social campaign or a website refresh on its own. Under Paid media with multi-touch campaign, you can't.

Some activities have gone completely. Microsoft Syndicated Content, Proof of Concept, and Employee Purchase Web Setup are gone. That has a big effect on agencies whose Co-op offer relied on putting a partner's logo on Microsoft-produced content and pushing it out.

There's also a detail that matters a lot for agency relationships. According to Bane Consulting's FY27 summary, an allocated resource must be directly employed or contracted by you, and explicitly may not be a third-party subcontractor. Agency retainers don't qualify under that heading, though agency fees are eligible under plenty of the campaign activities.

A distributor will quickly tell the difference between an agency that knows this and one that's still working from last year's playbook. The giveaway is usually the statement of work. Does every line map to a claimable activity, or is it a general retainer that someone will have to make fit later?

Distributors have seen enough rejected claims to treat proof of execution as non-negotiable. The rules are strict on this. Partial claims aren't permitted, so a claim that's short of documentation isn't half-paid - it's not paid.

A good agency builds the evidence pack as it goes, rather than scrambling for it at the deadline. That pack should include dated screenshots of live ads and emails, itemised invoices split by activity, event attendee lists and a campaign report that shows the multi-touch structure. We've seen partners come close to losing large sums because the agency's invoice didn't separate claimable from non-claimable work. It's frustrating, because it happens so easily and it's so easy to prevent.

Microsoft is open about where it wants partners to focus, and distributors follow suit. Bane Consulting's analysis of the FY27 guidance found that approximately 80% of recommended co-op spend points at AI-related activities, which covers Cloud and AI Platforms, Copilot, AI Workforce and AI Business Process.

So distributors look for agencies that can build credible campaigns around AI and Copilot adoption, security and Azure. That means more than repeating Microsoft's messaging. It means helping a partner say something specific about how they deliver it. Too many Microsoft partners still sound the same, and an agency that just hands out the same AI campaign to every reseller won't help any of them stand out.

From experience, this is the area where distributors have become noticeably more demanding. Microsoft has given them reason to. Microsoft's own co-op ROI analysis - built on aggregated historical claims data - found partners who invest in the highest-performing activity types realise 2 to 5 times higher future earnings from Microsoft business than partners spending elsewhere. Paid media with multi-touch campaigns is the named example.

Distributors want agencies that report on the numbers a channel account manager actually cares about. That means qualified leads, meetings booked, opportunities created and, ideally, revenue influenced. Impressions and click-through rates still have a place, but in a supporting role rather than as the headline. If an agency's monthly report doesn't link back to pipeline, it's hard for a distributor to justify putting more Co-op behind it.

Distributors don't support one partner. They support hundreds, and quite often they want to fund a campaign that runs through a group of resellers at once. They need an agency that can build a campaign framework that's repeatable but still adapted to each partner. That covers the messaging, the landing pages and the targeting, all tailored enough that each reseller sounds like itself.

They also look closely at the practical side: clear pricing, sensible lead times, a straightforward PO process and someone who answers the phone. None of it is glamorous, but it's often what decides whether an agency gets asked back.