DM9’s Grand Prix withdrawal after fabricating case study elements has opened a long-overdue conversation about awards integrity. The Brazilian agency’s fake CNN coverage, fictional TED Talk, and made-up testimonials led to three Lions being returned and their CCO’s resignation.
Ad Age’s investigation, speaking with 22 industry executives, revealed what many suspected: vote manipulation, lobbying, and astronomical case study budgets are endemic to the system. One network CCO described it bluntly: “The cheating is just getting really sloppy.”
Lindsay Rittenhouse from Ad Age joined Indie Agency News’ recent live chat to unpack the investigation’s findings and what they mean for independent agencies. The investigation was conducted by Rittenhouse, Brian Bonilla, Ewen Larkin, and Garret Sloane.
Key moments:
5:30 – Lindsay Rittenhouse joins to discuss Ad Age investigation
8:14 – When did we realize this was really bad?
11:16 – The “sloppiness” of modern cheating
14:47 – Rich Levy shares his experience with festival organizers
16:00 – Awards, confidence, and growing talent
19:17 – Brazil’s celebrity creative culture
21:00 – Should we judge pure creativity vs effectiveness?
27:00 – Budget disparities and leveling the playing field
28:48 – What didn’t make it into the Ad Age story
31:58 – Do awards influence new business decisions?
The Numbers Game
Case study videos for major awards can cost upwards of $20,000—a figure that puts immediate perspective on the playing field. For context, that’s often more than an independent agency’s entire awards budget for the year.
The investigation uncovered systematic issues:
- Judges offered money and jobs for favorable votes
- Competitive takedowns between rival networks
- Lobbying efforts that blur ethical lines
- Fear-based voting patterns among jury members
Rich Levy, CCO at Klick Health, shared his experience during the live discussion about attempting to report suspicious behavior to festival organizers last year. He was told to “mind his own business.”
Brazil’s High-Stakes Creative Culture
The scandal resonates particularly in Brazil, where creative awards carry unusual weight. Industry sources note that Lions performance can determine an agency’s business prospects for the entire year, with creative directors achieving celebrity status based on their wins.
This cultural context may explain the brazenness of DM9’s fabrications, though similar practices reportedly exist across markets.
The Judging Room Dynamics
Sources revealed surprising dynamics within jury rooms:
- Judges from prominent agencies admitted avoiding votes for lesser-known shops out of concern for their reputation
- Polished case study videos often overshadow the actual creative work
- Jury presidents report actively coaching against video production bias, with mixed results
During the discussion, Rittenhouse shared an observation that didn’t make it into the published investigation: one judge noted that colleagues have been “afraid of judging with just their heart” due to peer perception concerns.
Industry Response and Implications
Sebastian Wolf, a German professor, has compiled approximately 50 examples of suspicious Cannes winners sent by industry whistleblowers. Meanwhile, holding companies are reportedly reconsidering their awards investments amid broader cost pressures.
Cannes Lions has announced new verification requirements, including mandatory client approval for case studies. Whether these measures address systemic issues remains to be seen.
For independent agencies, the revelations present both vindication and a dilemma. While the playing field’s inequities are now documented, the question remains whether awards remain worth pursuing when competing against organizations with dedicated awards budgets that dwarf indie marketing spend.
Looking Forward
Several holding companies are reportedly scaling back awards investments. Combined with increased scrutiny and new verification requirements, this could represent a shift in the landscape.
The discussion highlighted a fundamental tension: awards can provide valuable recognition for emerging talent and agency credibility, yet the current system appears structurally biased toward those with the deepest pockets.
As one executive noted in the Ad Age investigation, the issue isn’t limited to Cannes but reflects broader industry practices around awards and recognition. The DM9 incident may simply be the visible tip of a much larger iceberg.
For now, independent agencies must weigh whether the potential benefits of participation justify competing in a system where, as multiple sources confirmed, the rules seem different depending on who’s playing.
- About the Author
- Latest Posts
