Is the Miss Nepal Controversy Just Another Marketing Gimmick?

In recent weeks, the Miss Nepal pageant has found itself under fierce public scrutiny. From judges’ comments criticized as insensitive especially toward contestants with disabilities to accusations that the beauty contest perpetuates unrealistic standards many are asking: is this controversy genuine, or is it being stoked for attention, viewership, and brand value?

Here are some reasons why it might be more marketing than moral reckoning and why that matters.

A clip of judge Rachana Gurung asking a contestant with a physical disability to “explain about your arm” went viral. Some say the judge was being insensitive. Others point out the context was more complex.
Samriddhi Rai, a public figure, has called beauty pageants “nothing more than a marketing gimmick,” arguing they objectify women and trade empowerment rhetoric for entertainment value.
A recurring criticism: pageants like Miss Nepal promote narrow beauty standards, privacy compromises, and behind-the-scenes bias. These points resonate on social media.

Why it might be a marketing play

Virality generates eyeballs
Controversies bring attention. An insensitive remark, a judge’s misstep, a moment of perceived injustice — these are powerful fuel for social media sharing, commentary, memes, and debates. That visibility translates into sponsorship, ad revenue, and prestige.
Branding via “cause” or “empowerment”
Pageants are increasingly positioning themselves as platforms for women’s voices, social issues, inclusivity, etc. But when an organization emphasizes empowerment after controversy breaks, it raises the question: was empowerment the goal — or a way to limit the reputational damage and retain relevance?
Emotional triggers sell
Outrage, hurt, identity issues — they provoke strong emotional responses. Marketing campaigns (and media outlets) know this very well. Controversies are more shareable, which means more reach—especially on platforms that reward engagement.
Ambiguity allows both sides to benefit
If the organizers respond with sincerity, they can earn respect; if people stay upset, the controversy stays alive and gives more exposure. Either way, the brand stays relevant. It’s a risky balancing act, but one with potential upside.

Why this matters

Authenticity risk
If people believe the controversy was manufactured or exaggerated for publicity, trust erodes—not only in Miss Nepal, but in similar institutions.
Real harm to individuals
Contestants, especially those already marginalised (by disability, ethnicity, class), can bear the emotional cost of public scrutiny. Even if used for marketing, human impact remains.
Dilution of genuine advocacy
When every issue becomes a PR moment, causes that need sustained effort risk being treated like temporary trends.

What should we ask moving forward

Are the responses to controversy backed by structural changes (e.g. judge training, better inclusion policies), or just apologies and statements?
Who is benefiting? Sponsors? Contest organizers? The winners? Or only those with media platforms?
Is the audience demanding real transparency and accountability or just more sensational moments?

In short yes, there are strong signs Miss Nepal is being pulled (whether intentionally or not) into the kind of controversy-drama that doubles as marketing. That doesn’t mean all criticism is disingenuous many concerns are real and valid. But for the brand, the stakes are high: ride the wave well, or be seen as yet another spectacle disguised as sincerity.