While much attention has centred on the 25% reduction in Lions entries this year, the bigger picture tells a more profound story: entries have nearly halved over the past decade. Given this, we analysed whether agencies are simply becoming more selective or if the industry is rethinking the value of international creative awards. We also examined what this shift means for the future of other international awards and even India’s own award shows. 

The entry count for the Lions was over 43,000 just a decade ago. It’s now at 20,050. Do you see this as a temporary correction or evidence of a structural shift in how the industry views international award shows? What does it mean for the future of Cannes Lions?

Satbir Singh, founder and chief creative officer, Thinkstr (SS): It’s more than a cyclical correction. The creative side of the industry is facing a monumental decline in revenues. The industry is reimagining itself. Awards have been the last thing on its mind over the last couple of years. Cannes will remain the most influential global platform for the industry for some time to come. It will have to keep in mind the changes and challenges the industry is facing.

S Subramanyeswar, chief strategy officer, Omnicom Advertising India, chief knowledge officer, Omnicom Advertising Asia (Subbu): It is evidence of a larger shift. The economics of creativity have changed. There was a time when the primary role of creativity was to produce outstanding communication. Today, creativity is expected to influence markets, shape culture, solve business problems and increasingly create competitive or distinctive advantage. Its responsibility has expanded. That changes how agencies evaluate every investment, including awards. For decades, international awards were the principal validators of creative excellence. Today, the market validates creativity every single day. Growth, cultural influence, client trust, consumer participation and commercial impact have all become forms of recognition. Awards are not losing value. They are losing their monopoly on recognition. That doesn’t diminish Cannes. If anything, it gives Cannes an opportunity to become even more meaningful. Fewer entries backed by greater conviction can elevate the significance of every Lion. Its enduring role has never been to count creativity. It has been to define where creativity is going.

If entries continue to decline over the next few years, at what point does it become a concern for the long-term relevance and business model of Cannes Lions? Or do you believe the festival can remain influential even with significantly fewer entries?

SS: Cannes is not just an award show. It is a festival of creativity. The draw is always a mix of talks, speakers, networking opportunities, and the location, besides, of course, the Lions agencies go back with. Perhaps degrowth in entries is here to stay, and the future Cannes will have to be built around that new normal.

Subbu: Every institution has to remain commercially healthy, so sustained declines deserve attention. Its influence, however, rests on something deeper.

Creativity itself is expanding. It now lives inside AI, product design, commerce, entertainment, gaming, retail, customer experience and entrepreneurship. The industry’s centre of gravity has widened. The industry once celebrated the best advertising. Increasingly, it celebrates the best application of creativity.

As long as Cannes continues to recognise that evolution and continues to define what creative excellence looks like in this broader landscape, its relevance will extend well beyond the number of entries it receives.

Given India’s relatively modest performance this year, do you expect Indian agencies to become more selective about Cannes entries, or will this act as motivation to invest more aggressively in global creative recognition next year?

SS: Depleting revenues apart, it’s also been a confusing time with all the mergers, rejigs and what have you. One hopes things will stabilise in the coming months. Having said that, entries are an expensive proposition and creatives will be under tremendous pressure from suits to only send ‘sure-shot’ contenders and not spray all over.

Subbu: India has earned its reputation over decades. One year doesn’t alter that. I expect this moment to encourage reflection more than reaction.

The most celebrated Indian work has rarely succeeded because it looked international. It succeeded because it interpreted India with originality, confidence and cultural depth. That remains our greatest creative advantage.

Agencies may become more selective about what they enter, but I also expect them to become more ambitious about the work they produce. Those two ideas are entirely compatible.

Global recognition continues to matter because it stretches creative standards. The strongest route to that recognition is still authentic work with universal human resonance.

Could this shift redirect Indian participation towards awards such as D&AD and LIA, or even strengthen regional and Indian award shows? How do you see the awards ecosystem evolving?

SS: The thing with Cannes (also its exclusive attraction) is you send both - entries and delegates. But that makes it doubly expensive. The shift will certainly benefit homegrown shows if they show interest.

Subbu: The awards ecosystem is maturing. Every respected festival now occupies its own territory. D&AD has its distinctive reputation. LIA has its own lens. Cannes has evolved into the broadest conversation around creativity, business and culture.

Regional awards are becoming equally important because they recognise work emerging from cultural contexts that global juries cannot always experience firsthand.

I suspect the future belongs to greater intentionality. Agencies will think less about entering every competition and more about identifying the stage that best reflects the nature of the work. That evolution should strengthen the ecosystem rather than fragment it.

Do you think the Lions needs to ease up on the ‘integrity standards’ it introduced and focus more on the creative to ensure more participation in the future, or have these measures struck the right balance between protecting credibility and encouraging participation?

SS: Integrity standards are an important step towards establishing credibility and are always the right measure. All shows have them. They have never discouraged anyone from entering a good piece.

Subbu: I would be cautious about separating integrity from creativity because the two ultimately reinforce one another. The value of every award depends on confidence in every winner. As creativity acquires greater influence over business and society, expectations around evidence naturally become stronger as well. The processes will continue to evolve, but the direction feels right.

The industry’s greatest ideas deserve to be recognised because they genuinely changed something—for people, for brands or for culture.

Beyond cost or integrity rules, what do you think is fundamentally driving the decline in entries? Is it economic pressure, changing agency priorities, or a broader reassessment of what awards deliver for agencies and clients today?

SS: Tectonic tremors from severely declining revenues, the Omnicom-IPG merger, restructuring and firing of, say, 10,000 people at WPP have all created a less than desirable frame of mind within the industry. Clearly, that’s not the best environment to discuss award entries in agency conference rooms.

Subbu: Economic pressure explains part of the story. So do integrity standards. The larger shift is that  creativity itself has entered a new economy. Clients increasingly seek creativity that creates value beyond communication. 

Agencies are advising on innovation, customer experience, AI, commerce, organisational transformation and cultural strategy. Creativity is no longer evaluated only by originality. It is evaluated by the value it creates. That naturally changes what agencies expect from awards. Perhaps this is the real story behind the numbers.

Every era asks creativity a different question. There was a time when originality was enough. Today, creativity is also expected to leave evidence behind in markets, in culture and in business.

This article first appeared in the August issue of Manifest, which can be purchased here.