In a world of eight billion people, countless events occur every moment. Some of these are history-making, life-altering events, but how many of them do we ever hear about? Only a small fraction of events make it to the media spotlight, and even fewer stay there for long.
The media, including social media, offers us just a tiny snapshot of global happenings. While some stories and individuals receive massive attention, even the biggest headlines are often short-lived. This fleeting attention span has significant implications, especially in the realm of crisis communications.
Despite the alarming headlines about the amount of time people spend on their phones or watching TV, most people don’t spend much time attending to world events. Attention is a finite commodity, and several factors determine what captures it, especially in the media.
One of the most crucial factors determining how much attention something will receive is its newness. Let’s look at three major news stories: the war in Ukraine, the U.S. elections, and the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine. Each provides a clear example of just how short-lived media attention can be.
When Russia invaded Ukraine, media coverage was overwhelming. However, as time passed, coverage dwindled. Today, the war in Ukraine often doesn’t even make the front pages unless there’s a dramatic new development. Leaders like Zelensky understand that to keep aid flowing to Ukraine the situation must not become “boring” for international audiences. I wonder if the Ukrainian decision to send troops across the border into Russia may have been, in part, a strategy to reignite media interest?
When the Houthi rebels in Yemen attacked the Galaxy Leader they filmed it and shared the footage widely in a way that maximised global attention. The Houthis set up a highly effective press office and communications operation. Several journalists covering the situation have noted to me privately that it’s often easier for them to get a timely response from the Houthis press office than from the offices of the shipping companies whose vessels are targeted. Yet even these well-orchestrated efforts and significant continued attacks have struggled to maintain media interest. I hope that the waning attention may decrease the Houthi’s motivation to continue the attacks, but I worry it will prompt them to escalate in an effort to attract the attention they appear to crave.
Few events captivate media attention like U.S. presidential elections, and the 2024 race has been no exception. Donald Trump, a master of media attention seeking, has found himself losing the spotlight to the Democrats with the changes at the top of the Democratic Party ticket. While Trump will undoubtedly reclaim media attention, this shift shows that even the most attention-grabbing figures can only hold the media’s gaze for so long.
So, what does all this mean for crisis communications? The key takeaway is that even the worst crises will eventually fade from the spotlight. However, this doesn’t mean companies should adopt a “wait it out” strategy. Crises, by their very nature, are often the most “shiny” stories and can easily dominate media coverage, even if only for a short time. It might be tempting for a company to bury its head in the sand, hoping the storm will pass, and in some cases, it might seem like this approach worked. But the impact of a crisis—both in terms of immediate financial losses and long-term reputation damage—can be profound.
The smarter approach is to respond quickly and strategically. If the media is going to cover your crisis for a week, that’s the window you have in which to shape public perception. The short attention spans that can make crises fade quickly also mean that your window to influence what people see, read, and remember about your company is brief.
Fail to communicate while your crisis has the media’s attention, and no one will be listening when you decide to communicate later.
