Frankly, it amazes me how much hand-wringing there is about the viability of radio's future, when radio is killing itself.
We replace live, local jocks with tracked-in outta towners or Ryan Seacrest for middays/afternoons, and satellite-fed shows in AM drive and at night, too; I mean, I get why personality-driven morning shows work in other markets and I can see why some small town stations might find themselves better suited to run a satellite-fed night show, but by and large, the less we make our stations "our stations," the less your local audience thinks of your station as "their station," too, I believe.
No disrespect to Seacrest, but are people REALLY clamoring to listen to ANY jock schmoozing with celebs while they're at the office busting the hump to pay the bills? This idea is so asinine it befuddles me; you CAN'T tell me this is a "sound" programming decision. It's cost-conscious, sure, but not sound programming.
But that's just it; radio decision-makers seem to be more interested in profit margin than ratings. Lower ratings with higher profit margins is better for the company, in the short-term, but horrible for the product, in the long-run.
Some of them wonder why their audience isn't as "endeared" to their station anymore, when the station's been pared down to a skeleton crew, and that station's "major personalities" are many states away and never gonna shake their hand and thank 'em for listening. Absurd.
Best of luck to all who're on the wrong end of the stick in this time...
