External Pressure and the Evolution of Pageantry

External Pressure and the Evolution of Pageantry

Throughout the history of beauty contests, reform has rarely come from within. Instead, external forces, sponsors, media, and audiences, have consistently driven change when scandals or tragedies threatened the credibility of pageants. 

The ordeal of Miss Jamaica, Dr. Gabrielle Henry, fits squarely into this pattern, and the way stakeholders respond will likely determine whether Miss Universe evolves or stagnates.

Sponsors have always been the most immediate source of pressure. Pageants rely heavily on corporate backing, and when controversies erupt, sponsors are quick to distance themselves to protect their brand image. In the past, accusations of sexism, racism, or exploitation have led to sponsorship withdrawals, forcing organizers to adopt reforms to regain financial support. 

In Henry’s case, the severity of her injuries and the global sympathy surrounding her fall could make sponsors demand stricter safety standards and transparent accountability measures before continuing their association with Miss Universe.

Media coverage has also played a decisive role. The press has historically amplified scandals, from the feminist protests against Miss America in 1968 to allegations of vote rigging in later decades. In today’s digital age, social media magnifies these controversies instantly, shaping public opinion in real time. 

The viral footage of Henry’s fall, coupled with reports of chaos and mismanagement at the 2025 competition, has already framed Miss Universe as negligent. This narrative, if left unchallenged, could erode the pageant’s reputation beyond repair.

Audiences, too, wield power. Public backlash has forced pageants to diversify contestants, modernize judging criteria, and emphasize empowerment over mere aesthetics. If viewers perceive Miss Universe as unsafe or exploitative, participation rates may decline, and ratings could plummet. 

The comments from Miss Universe Haiti, Melissa Sapini, describing the competition as “absolutely diabolical,” resonate with a growing skepticism among young women who may question whether pageantry is worth the risk.

Taken together, these external pressures suggest that Miss Universe cannot afford to treat Henry’s tragedy as an isolated incident. Sponsors will demand reforms, media will continue to scrutinize, and audiences will expect meaningful change. 

If the organization fails to respond decisively, the pageant risks losing not only credibility but also its cultural relevance.

This moment, then, is not just about one contestant’s recovery, it is about whether pageantry itself can survive in a world that increasingly values transparency, safety, and empowerment.