Digital Agencies
Badshah’s fake views controversy highlights influencer marketing inadequacies
NEW DELHI: Bollywood rapper Badshah has come under scrutiny for allegedly buying fake views for one of his music videos. This has, once again, opened up the debate on the ‘fake followers’ strategy prevalent in the social media landscape and how celebrities and influencers are highly involved in this practice.
According to media reports, Badshah confessed that he had purchased around 7.2 crore views for Rs 72 lakh to set a world record for the most-viewed YouTube video in the first 24 hours. He had claimed that the music video for 'Pagal Hai' was watched 75 million times on the first day of its release, beating previous records set by Taylor Swift and the Korean boy band BTS. However, the claim was rejected by Google.
Monk Media Network assistant vice president Pranav Nair explains, “In this scenario, he's paid to get more numbers on his content and not a brand's. So, from a brand management perspective, one can accept the fact that he's investing money to grow his metrics on social media.”
The issue has come at a time when digital consumption spiked in the lockdown period and advertisers are spending a hefty amount on influencer marketing. As per reports, influencer marketing is seen as one of the fastest-growing categories in the Rs 21,000 crore digital advertising space.
Buying fake followers is the unpalatable side of the digital marketing industry and the way brands invest in followers for reach, reflects how deep the problem is. Brands that take decisions based on one post or just the number of followers will see reality when the ROI hits them.
Lets Influence founder Bhawna Sethi opines, “The major issue faced by brand managers is that it's not possible to dissect every single profile they are planning to collaborate with. Hence, big brands prefer hiring influencer marketing agencies as they have expertise in a specific service, industry, audience, channel, etc., and can help them avoid collaborating with such fake profiles.”
Nair advises that brands should not collaborate with such an influencer as it cuts the organic reach of the brand, which is one of the reasons why brands collaborate with influencers.
In recent times, many in-house tools have been launched to help identify fake followers, their percentage share and the impact of engagement. However, the rampant problem of vanity metrics, bots and others in the digital domain still lingers. A lot of celebrities have also been a part of it and measures are needed to control the growing menace.
Sethi says, “While working with celebrities, we realised that more than being a part of it, celebrities are victims of this. There are many instances when they engage with agencies for paid promotions and aren't even aware that the followers joining them are not real people. It won't be right to say that they bought fake followers with full awareness.”
Badshah has also been associated with brands like Pepsi, Yamaha, Hitachi, Mahindra and OPPO. This incident is likely to have an impact on his associations. It has also led to many people unfollowing his social media accounts.
MAD Influence founder and CEO Gautam Madhavan says, “It's very disheartening for the viewers to know first that their favourite celeb has bought fake followers and on the other hand, agencies like us won't also promote such celebs in suggesting to various brand campaigns. Thus, they lose the brand credibility and the money too.”
BENGALURU: For years, creative teams have learned to live with ambiguity. Vague comments, last-minute changes, feedback that arrives without context, clarity, or conviction. It became part of the job – something teams worked around rather than getting it solved.
But as we head into 2026, that tolerance is wearing thin.
Creative work today moves faster, scales wider, and involves more stakeholders than before. Teams are producing more content across more formats, often with distributed collaborators and tighter timelines. In this environment, guesswork is no longer a harmless inconvenience. It’s a cost – to time, to budgets, and to creative mindspace.
The real problem isn’t feedback, it’s how it’s given
Most creative professionals you see today will tell you they’re not against feedback. In fact, they rely on it. Good feedback sharpens ideas, strengthens execution, and pushes work forward. The problem is ‘unclear’ feedback. When someone says “this doesn’t feel right” without context, they aren’t just revising – they’re basically decoding. They’re guessing what the problem might be, trying different directions, and burning time in the process. Multiply that by a few stakeholders and a few rounds, and suddenly days disappear.
In 2026, when teams are expected to deliver faster without compromising quality, interpretation is a luxury most can’t afford.
Scale has changed rverything
Creative projects used to be smaller and simpler. A designer, a manager, maybe one client contact. Feedback loops were short, even if they weren’t perfect.
Today, the same project might involve internal marketing teams, agencies, freelancers, brand reviewers, and regional teams. Everyone has a say. Everyone leaves comments. And often, those comments don’t agree. More people reviewing work means alignment matters more than ever. Clear feedback isn’t just about being nice to creative teams, it’s about keeping projects moving when complexity increases.
Guesswork quietly wears teams down
One of the less talked-about impacts of unclear feedback is what it does to people.
When feedback is vague or contradictory, creatives second-guess their decisions. They hesitate. They overwork. They keep extra time buffers “just in case.” Over time, confidence drops. Ownership fades. Work becomes safer, not stronger. Creative energy gets spent on managing uncertainty instead of pushing ideas forward. And in an industry already grappling with burnout, unclear feedback adds unnecessary mental load.
Actionable feedback is a shared skill
Clear feedback doesn’t mean controlling creative decisions or dictating every detail. It means being specific enough that someone knows what to do next.
Actionable feedback answers three basic questions:
What exactly needs attention?
Why does it matter?
What outcome are we aiming for?
This applies whether you’re reviewing a video frame, a design layout, or a copy draft. The clearer the feedback, the fewer follow-ups it creates. In 2026, teams that treat feedback as a skill and not an afterthought, will move faster with less friction.
Tools shape behaviour (whether we admit it or not)
The way feedback is delivered is often dictated by the tools teams use. Comments buried in long email threads, messages split across chat apps, or notes detached from the actual work all contribute to confusion.
When feedback lives outside the work, context often gets lost. When it’s disconnected from versions and timelines, decisions get questioned. When it’s scattered, accountability disappears. More teams are starting to realise that feedback problems aren’t just communication issues, they’re workflow issues. How work moves between people matters just as much as the work itself.
From Opinions To Alignment
One of the biggest shifts happening in creative teams is a move away from purely opinion-driven feedback. Instead of “I like this” or “I don’t,” teams are asking better questions:
● Does this meet the brief?
● Does this solve the problem?
● Does this align with the goal?
This change reduces unnecessary back-and-forth and helps feedback feel less personal and more productive. It also makes decisions easier to explain and defend. As creative work becomes more strategic, feedback has to support that shift.
2026 Is About Fewer Loops, Not Faster Loops
There’s a misconception that speed means moving through feedback cycles faster. In reality, the most creative teams aren’t just accelerating loops, they’re reducing them. Clear, actionable feedback upfront leads to fewer revisions later. Clear approval stages prevent last-minute surprises. Clear decisions stop work from circling endlessly.
In 2026, efficiency won’t come from working harder or longer. It will come from designing workflows that respect creative time and attention.
Ending guesswork is a mindset change
Ultimately, ending creative guesswork isn’t just about better tools or processes. It’s about mindset. It’s about recognising that clarity is an act of respect – for the work, for the people doing it, for the time invested and for the mindspace used. It’s about moving from “figure it out” to “here’s what we’re aiming for.”
Creative teams that embrace this shift will find themselves not only delivering faster, but also enjoying the process more. And in an industry built on imagination, that might be the most valuable outcome of all.
