MAM
Being uncomfortable is a creative superpower, says Marcel CEO Youri Guerassimov at Goafest 2025
MUMBAI: At Day three of Goafest 2025, Marcel (Paris) chief creative officer & CEO Youri Guerassimov delivered a wake-up call to a packed house, reminding brands that playing safe is a fast-track ticket to irrelevance. His keynote, titled ‘Creativity That Dares to Disrupt’, challenged marketers to ditch comfort and lean into creative bravery.
“Bravery in advertising is about stepping outside comfort zones and challenging norms”, said Guerassimov, adding that brands face an uphill battle for attention with over 6,000 ads bombarding consumers each day. Visibility alone no longer cuts it; what cuts through is conviction.
Citing global studies, he noted that 86 per cent of consumers (Edelman) now expect brands to take a stand on social or environmental issues, and 66 per cent (Accenture) are willing to switch allegiance if companies remain silent. “Fear is temporary”, he warned. “Regret is forever”.
Drawing from iconic campaigns, Guerassimov spotlighted Nike’s controversial Colin Kaepernick ad as a case of calculated defiance and cultural impact. He also praised Volvo for its courage in sharing a safety innovation with rivals—an act that served both purpose and people.
Importantly, he clarified that bravery in branding doesn’t always require provocation. “Bravery can be strategic, design-led, or business-oriented”, he said, showcasing Mcdonald’s minimalist billboard and Marcel’s ‘Inglorious Fruits and Vegetables’ campaign. The latter began as a simple retail concept and grew into a national movement tackling food waste.
Guerassimov also emphasised that bravery lies not in budgets but in belief. Whether it’s a few purposeful words added to a contract or overhauling a store layout to reflect values, real change comes from intent and execution.
He celebrated Patagonia’s headline-making move to donate its profits to climate activism as a prime example of purpose-driven disruption. “Bravery is a strategic tool”, he affirmed. “A superpower to connect with consumers and lead markets”.
Ultimately, Guerassimov urged brands to trust their ideas and act on them decisively. “When you feel a little uncomfortable with your idea, that’s often the sign you’re on the right track”.
Brands
Maharashtra panel orders Lodha to refund Rs 5 crore to homebuyers
Consumer court flags unfair practices in long-running property dispute case
MUMBAI: In a sharp rebuke to one of India’s biggest real estate players, the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed Macrotech Developers to refund nearly Rs 5 crore to a senior citizen couple, Uttam and Anindita Chatterjee. The ruling, delivered on March 13, 2026, calls out the developer for “deficiency in service” and “unfair trade practices”, bringing closure to a dispute that has stretched over a decade.
The case traces back to 2015, when the couple booked a 3-BHK flat at World Towers in Lower Parel for Rs 12.22 crore, with possession promised within a year. What followed was a series of changes that complicated matters. After deciding to exit the project, they were persuaded to shift to a 4-BHK in another development priced at Rs 8 crore, with delivery scheduled for 2018. However, within months, the price was allegedly increased to Rs 10 crore. After demonetisation reshaped the market, similar flats were reportedly being offered at lower prices, but the couple were not given the benefit.
Despite paying over Rs 2.83 crore, the couple neither received possession nor clarity. Instead, in 2018, the developer unilaterally cancelled the booking, retained part of the amount as earnest money, and argued that the buyers were investors rather than consumers. The commission rejected this claim, observing that casual references to “investment” do not take away consumer rights when the purchase intent is residential.
The bench also held that the developer could not penalise buyers for payment delays while failing to meet its own delivery commitments. It noted the lack of formal documentation for revised terms and termed the prolonged retention of funds without delivering a home as exploitative.
As part of its order, the commission directed the developer to refund Rs 2.83 crore paid by the couple, along with interest at 10 per cent per annum, amounting to around Rs 2.12 crore. In addition, Rs 1 lakh has been awarded for mental agony and Rs 50,000 towards litigation costs, taking the total payout to over Rs 5 crore. The developer has been asked to comply within two months.
For now, the ruling serves as a reminder that in real estate, shifting terms and delayed promises can carry a significant cost.
