Cannes Lions 2025: Roars of success or whispers of doubt?

Time of India

23-06-2025

On Saturday morning,
KV Sridhar
, popularly known as Pops in the advertising world, posted on LinkedIn a poster: '
Cannes
is the new
Goafest
.' IYKYK.
However, the sub-text in Sridhar's message merely celebrated India's continued success on the global stage, noting the country's impressive haul of 32 Lions at
Cannes
2025.
Sridhar was not alone in his reflections.
Naresh Gupta
, co-founder, Bang in the Middle, was more direct. Questioning the legitimacy of some wins, Gupta's post on social media said, 'Cannes is over and some Lions have roared, or have they?' He specifically called out campaigns that won big but whose real-world impact or even existence appeared questionable.
The campaigns under his scrutiny included
FCB
India's Grand Prix-winning Lucky Yatra for Indian Railways, which he alleged, barely ran; Talented's Silver-winning Nature Shapes Britannia, whose sustainability impact he questioned; and Havas's Gold-winning Ink of Democracy for TOI.
This isn't the first time winners at
Cannes Lions
have faced scrutiny. In fact, during this year's edition, Cannes Lions itself is investigating São Paulo-based DM9, a 2025 Creative Data Grand Prix winner, for allegedly submitting a doctored case study video for their "Efficient Way to Pay" campaign. This global precedent, involving falsified testimonials and misattributed content, highlights a systemic vulnerability.
Oversight or Calculated Risk?
So, where did Indian agencies possibly falter? Was it an innocent oversight, or something more calculated? Or could this be an attempt to outsmart global juries who may not fully understand the nuances of the Indian market? Gupta didn't mince words. 'This isn't a case of oversight from the agencies; it's a well-thought-through strategy,' he asserted. Gupta pointed out that this practice isn't new. 'It has been happening for a while. People notice, conversations happen, and then it fades until the next time.'
Speaking about FCB India's Lucky Yatra campaign, Gupta didn't hold back. According to him, the campaign is a 'scam.' 'It never really happened,' he said. 'The idea may have been pitched, someone may have given it a name, but it was discontinued almost as soon as it began. I don't even think it was fully executed. Yet, somehow, it won a Grand Prix.' But reports in sections of media highlight that the campaign ran for three months and was stopped, ironically a day before Cannes Lions, after it generated an extremely poor response.
(ETBrandEquity has reached out to FCB India for their comments and the story will be updated once we hear back from them.)
Gupta further pointed out that many of these entries are crafted specifically to win international awards, tailored to appeal to global juries. 'It's all about gloss, polish, and creating the kind of activity that tends to win more awards,' he commented. 'Just look at FCB winning a Gold for PR. That's when you know things have been packaged very cleverly.'
Pops shared a perspective on the increased scrutiny that follows major wins in the advertising industry. According to him, success naturally draws attention, and rather than focusing solely on what went wrong, it's more productive to think about how to improve going forward. 'If you have big ambitions and are 'greedy' for awards, then you need to do a lot of groundwork carefully and honestly,' he advised.
He highlighted the problem of exaggerated claims in award entries, referencing recent controversies. 'It's completely unbelievable to say that one print ad, published for a single day in just two cities, changed voter turnout across the entire country. That's not how deeply rooted behaviour changes. These kinds of claims might seem harmless when made in the excitement of writing a case study, but if you win with a false story, it will eventually come back to bite you. These things should be sorted out much earlier in the process.'
Pops explained that great campaigns rely on two essential elements: the core creative idea and the execution. While the idea itself may be brilliant, the results and impact depend on factors like budget, client support, and media reach, which are not always within the creative team's control. A truly breakthrough campaign, he stressed, requires full collaboration across teams and stakeholders.
Another campaign facing criticism was the Nature Shapes Britannia campaign. The premise that four billboards could "save the world" raised eyebrows. According to experts, had it won in categories like Outdoor or Craft, it might have been more defensible. But winning in Sustainability? That's where credibility began to erode.
In a joint statement, Britannia and Talented acknowledged the recent criticism, emphasising, "At Britannia, we always value insights from experts, and constructive criticism is crucial in helping us grow and align better with the values we wish to uphold." They agreed that the company is "at the nascent stage of its sustainability journey."
The campaign's intent, the statement read, "was to share with our consumers that we are taking deliberate, albeit small steps toward a more sustainable future. While we understand that we are far from being a benchmark in sustainability, our goal is to be transparent about our progress and inspire collective action."
Regarding the
sustainability report
, Britannia explained that the document evaluated in the recent discussion was their statutory Annual Report. They urged attention to their Sustainability Report, published last year, which provides a detailed explanation for observed increases in numbers. This increase, they noted, correlates with an expansion of their operations and an extended reporting boundary.
Britannia reiterated their commitment to continuous improvement: "Each year, as our operations scale, we strive to be more mindful of the resources we use and the impact we create. Sustainability is not a destination but a journey, and we are dedicated to making meaningful strides along the way."
A System Under Scrutiny
According to Gupta, the responsibility lies squarely with the jury and the organisers. 'If they started to look at these submissions more carefully and deeply, this wouldn't happen. They don't do their due diligence. Someone on the jury from South America won't know what happened in India. They will only know what's been submitted, and the submission can sound absolutely perfect,' he stated. Gupta believes that without a proper vetting mechanism in place, these issues will keep recurring.
Pops offered a contrasting but related perspective. He noted that it's primarily the fault of the agency to construct a false narrative. Juries, to some extent, rely on the information provided in the case study.
He said, "If a case study claims a huge impact for a campaign, that's a compelling narrative for any jury. The jury relies on what's presented. While organisers might check after a Grand Prix win, ultimately, it's the agency's responsibility to be truthful."
Another industry leader observed that juries often evaluate entries based on the strength of the creative idea, without thoroughly validating the claimed impact. 'I don't blame creative ambition entirely,' he said.
'A significant part of the problem is the pressure that agencies and global holding companies put on teams. There's often a push to inflate a small idea into something larger just to win awards. It might lead to a trophy in the short term, but over time, it undermines the credibility of the entire industry.'