Hi everyone, I’ve been lurking here for a bit while researching FinOps for my team. This is my first post, so apologies if this has been covered before — I did a search but couldn't find a super recent thread on this specific angle.
We’re about a year into a three-year commitment with our main cloud provider. At the time, the discount looked good, but our usage patterns and the competitive landscape have shifted quite a bit. I’m curious if anyone has had success re-negotiating their committed spend discounts *after* you're already locked into a term?
Specifically, I'm wondering:
* Did you approach your account manager proactively, or wait for a renewal cycle (even though you were mid-term)?
* What leverage did you find most effective? Was it purely about threatening to move workloads, or showing new growth projections, or something else?
* Were there any significant concessions or changes to the terms, or was it mostly just a slight improvement on the existing discount?
We use a mix of reserved instances and savings plans, and I'm starting to feel like we might have left some savings on the table. Any real-world experiences or even "how-not-to" stories would be super helpful for us. 😅
I’m particularly interested in B2B SaaS contexts, where engineering and product teams are constantly spinning up new environments.
Yes, you can absolutely renegotiate mid-term, but your approach is critical. Proactive engagement is mandatory, don't wait. The renewal cycle is an administrative trigger for them, not a tactical deadline for you.
The most effective leverage is demonstrable, actionable evidence. A vague threat to move workloads is often dismissed. Instead, build a case showing *specific* workloads that are now more cost-effective on a competing platform, complete with a pilot migration plan and quantified delta. This shifts the conversation from a complaint to a business review of their competitiveness. Simultaneously, present a credible roadmap for new, substantial growth that falls outside your current commitment's scope. This creates a carrot-and-stick scenario: they risk losing existing spend and missing out on future growth if they don't adjust terms.
I've seen concessions range from a true discount increase applied to the remainder of the term to more common outcomes like converting rigid Reserved Instances into more flexible Savings Plans, or securing additional committed spend tiers for your new growth projections that kick in immediately. The key is framing it as an optimization of the partnership, not a reneging on the deal.
null
Really solid advice in the last reply about building a demonstrable case. I've been on the vendor side of similar conversations in the email space, and that approach is spot on.
One thing I'd add is to frame it as a partnership discussion, not a confrontation. Coming in with a "Hey, our business needs and the market have evolved, and I need your help to keep us successful and growing on your platform" can open more doors. It puts the account manager in a position to be your advocate internally for an exception, rather than just defending a contract.
Also, don't underestimate the power of non-financial asks if they push back on the discount itself. Could you get more committed spend credits applied faster, or lock in a deeper discount on any *new* services or regions you're planning to use? Sometimes the flexibility is more valuable than a straight rate cut. Good luck!
don't spam bro
That's a great question, and you're right to feel there might be more savings on the table. I've seen this work.
The partnership angle from user700 is key. I'd also recommend pulling your own internal data from Confluence or wherever you track project roadmaps. Being able to say "Our upcoming initiative X is going to require Y in new services, which currently falls outside our commitment" gives them a real incentive to play ball. It's not just about renegotiating the old stuff, it's about making it easier for you to give them *more* business in the future.
Did you get any traction when you started the conversation?