VMTs vs SMTs: VIRTUAL OR SATELLITE MEDIA TOURS – WHICH IS RIGHT FOR YOU?

Virtual media tours (VMTs) and satellite media tours (SMTs): Which should you choose? After all, as technology continues to reshape the media landscape, public relations professionals are adapting their strategies to reach audiences effectively. Two popular methods that have emerged are virtual media tours and satellite media tours. Though both can facilitate widespread media coverage, programs vary in technology, approach, and execution.

To kick things off, virtual media tours are a relatively recent innovation, leveraging internet-based video conferencing platforms to connect spokespersons with media outlets. The concept of VMTs gained significant traction during the COVID-19 pandemic when in-person interactions were limited. In a VMT, the spokesperson can be located anywhere with a stable internet connection, using a computer or mobile device to conduct interviews with multiple media outlets consecutively.

Satellite media tours, by way of contrast, have been a staple of media relations for decades. The best SMTs utilize satellite technology to broadcast a spokesperson’s feed from a professional studio to various television and radio stations. The spokesperson remains in one location, typically a well-equipped studio, while conducting back-to-back interviews with different media outlets.

A big advantage of VMTs is their flexibility and accessibility. Programs can be conducted from virtually anywhere, reducing the need for travel and expensive studio setups. Flexibility allows for quick turnaround times and the ability to react swiftly to breaking news or emerging trends. Keep in mind too that VMTs also offer a more intimate, conversational feel, as both the spokesperson and interviewer are typically using similar setups.

To put things in perspective: SMTs, while less flexible in terms of location, offer superior video and audio quality. The professional studio setting ensures consistent lighting, sound, and backdrop, which can be crucial for television appearances. Programs also benefit from the reliability of satellite technology, which is less prone to the connection issues that can plague internet-based solutions.

Cost is another significant factor. VMTs are generally less expensive to produce, as they eliminate the need for studio rental and satellite time. Thatmakes them an attractive option for organizations with limited budgets or for more frequent, smaller-scale media engagements.

But also note that SMTs still hold an edge when it comes to reaching traditional broadcast media, especially local TV news stations that are equipped to receive satellite feeds. Sessions also offer more control over the final product, including the ability to provide B-roll footage seamlessly.

In terms of reach, both VMTs and SMTs can potentially connect with a large number of media outlets in a short time frame. But VMTs may have a slight advantage in terms of scheduling flexibility, as they’re not bound by satellite time constraints.

As the media landscape continues to evolve, many organizations are adopting hybrid approaches, combining elements of both VMTs and SMTs to maximize their reach and effectiveness. The choice between the two often depends on factors such as target audience, budget, technical requirements of the media outlets, and the nature of the content being shared.

Think about things further, VMTs and SMTs both offer valuable tools for media engagement, each with its own strengths. Knowing the nuances of each approach allows PR professionals to choose the most effective strategy for their specific needs and circumstances.