If there was one phrase you couldn’t escape at Cannes Lions this year, it was “AI.”
From the Croisette to the beach clubs, every panel, breakfast briefing and networking conversation seemed to return to the same theme. The industry has moved beyond debating whether AI matters. That question has been settled. The conversation is now about implementation, integration and competitive advantage.
But after spending a week speaking with agency leaders, founders, CFOs and marketers, we’re increasingly convinced that AI isn’t the most important story coming out of Cannes.
The bigger story is that AI is forcing the industry to confront a much more fundamental question: what exactly is the value agencies create in a world where the economics of marketing are changing beneath our feet?
Beneath discussions about automation, productivity and efficiency sat a deeper debate about value itself: how value is created, how value is measured, and ultimately how value is paid for.
That debate sat at the centre of a roundtable we hosted at Club OPUS, bringing together 28 CEOs, CFOs and founders from across Media, Marketing and Advertising. Rather than focusing purely on AI, we deliberately widened the discussion to examine whether the traditional agency model remains fit for purpose as client demands, technology and commercial realities evolve.
What emerged wasn’t a consensus. In fact, quite the opposite. Yet despite the differing viewpoints, a number of important themes emerged.
The agency model faces an economic reset
For years, agencies have been challenged to do more with less. Margins remain under pressure, procurement teams continue to scrutinise costs, and clients increasingly expect strategic consultancy alongside campaign delivery.
None of this is new. What feels different today is that technology is beginning to challenge some of the assumptions on which agency economics were built.
Clients today want partners who can advise on transformation, data, technology, customer experience and growth strategy, not just creative execution. Yet many agency businesses continue to generate revenue through commercial models designed around project delivery and billable time.
The result is a growing disconnect between what clients increasingly value and how agencies are commercially organised to deliver it.
This is less a criticism of agencies than a recognition that many of the industry’s operating models were designed before generative AI, automated production and real-time personalisation began reshaping what agency work actually looks like.
The challenge now is whether those models remain fit for purpose in an environment where effort and value are becoming increasingly disconnected.
Creativity becomes more valuable, not less
One of the clearest themes to emerge from the discussion was the continued belief in creativity as a differentiator.
Despite all the excitement surrounding automation, nobody suggested that creativity itself is becoming less important. If anything, many argued the opposite.
As AI-generated content becomes increasingly accessible and abundant, differentiation becomes harder to achieve. The volume of content increases, but distinction becomes more valuable.
AI may increase the supply of content, but it does not automatically create originality, cultural relevance or genuine human connection. As the discussion evolved, one word surfaced repeatedly: “feel”.
Several participants argued that emotional resonance, cultural understanding and intuition are becoming increasingly important because they are precisely the qualities that are hardest to scale through automation.
In a world where algorithms can generate near-infinite content variations, the work that genuinely moves people may become even more prized.
Technology may democratise production, but it doesn’t automatically create meaning. As the barriers to content creation continue to fall, the ability to create meaning may become more valuable than ever.
Effort and value are no longer the same thing
Perhaps the most challenging conversation of the day centered around agency remuneration.
Historically, agencies have often priced work based on inputs: hours, teams, resource allocation and production effort. In many respects, effort and value became closely linked.
But what happens when technology fundamentally changes those inputs?
If AI enables a task that once took days to be completed in hours, should clients pay less because less time was required? Or should agencies be rewarded for delivering outcomes more efficiently?
The question is no longer how long something takes. The question is what the outcome is worth.
Yet that shift raises as many questions as it answers.
Nobody around the table claimed to have a definitive answer. In truth, the entire industry appears to be grappling with the same question.
The relationship between effort and value is becoming increasingly blurred. Yet many commercial structures still depend on it.
Whether this ultimately leads to greater adoption of outcome-based pricing, value-based remuneration or entirely new commercial models remains unclear. What is clear is that the industry can no longer assume that effort alone is an adequate proxy for value.
How agencies navigate that tension will shape how value is created, measured and captured in the years ahead.
The way we measure value is changing
The debate around value quickly extended to measurement.
After all, if agencies are being forced to rethink how value is priced, it is inevitable that they also rethink how value is measured.
For decades, the industry has relied heavily on metrics such as reach, impressions and audience scale. Yet there was notable scepticism around whether these metrics adequately capture what brands actually care about.
Impressions tell us whether people had the opportunity to see something.
They don’t tell us whether anybody cared.
They don’t tell us whether a message was remembered.
And they certainly don’t tell us whether behaviour changed.
As marketing leaders face increasing pressure to demonstrate effectiveness, there is growing recognition that many legacy performance measures may be insufficient in isolation.
The challenge is that while most people agree on what doesn’t work, there is far less agreement on what should replace it.
What was clear, however, is that the pressure to demonstrate commercial impact is only increasing. As the industry rethinks how value is created and captured, it must also rethink how value is measured.
The real question is which combination of attention, engagement, memory and business outcomes offers the most meaningful measure of value.
The future belongs to those who can define value
The most striking takeaway from Cannes wasn’t a new AI tool, a breakthrough technology or even an award-winning campaign.
It was the recognition that the industry is entering a period of fundamental recalibration.
The agency model isn’t disappearing. Creativity isn’t dying. Human insight remains enormously valuable.
But the assumptions underpinning how agencies create value, measure value and charge for value are all being questioned simultaneously.
That’s uncomfortable territory. Yet it is also where opportunity exists.
The agencies that thrive won’t simply be those that adopt AI fastest. They will be the ones that successfully redefine their role in a market where efficiency is becoming commonplace, differentiation becomes more important, and traditional measures of value are no longer sufficient.
The prevailing narrative from Cannes 2026 will undoubtedly be AI.
And that’s understandable.
AI is changing workflows, accelerating production and creating entirely new capabilities across the marketing ecosystem.
But focusing solely on the technology risks missing the bigger shift underway.
The real debate isn’t about whether AI can create content.
It’s whether an industry built around selling expertise, effort and execution can successfully reinvent how it creates value, captures value and measures value.
That was the real conversation happening beneath the surface at Club OPUS.
Because when a task that once required days can be completed in hours, the question is no longer what the work costs.
The question is what the outcome is worth.
