Many people are now asking “Is it over?” “Is radio going the way of the horse and buggy?” No, I don’t believe we are witnessing the death of radio. But I do believe we need to change our way of doing things if we are to survive. Radio needs to get back to it’s roots. It needs to be LIVE and LOCAL in order to compete with the new technologies. Unfortunately, this costs money. Which is why it’s not happening in most places...

http://drewdurigan.com/radiogeekheaven/?p=4056

What you're talking about is the result of radio's self-inflicted wounds over the past 15 years, and for some odd reason, it won't get any better, unless owners/operators get the hint and change their ways before it's too late. In some cases, it already is too late.

Radio can't/won't fully invest in the future of the product (people), because they've spent the better part of the last 15 years of the belief that their main competitor is, mistakenly, OTHER RADIO OPERATORS. Some are still of the belief that still holds true.

Sadly, it's not. And it hasn't been for a long time.

So for those who still think the radio's competitive paradigm still rests with them and the other operators, what tactics do they use? In a lot of instances, it's undercutting their perceived competition by dropping ad rates, by deploying gimmicks, or they hand the prospect all the leverage in a negotiated ad-buy.

And part of the reason why the station rep doesn't have any leverage is that by-and-large, radio groups that have no live and local presence, or a token one at best, gave up whatever leverage they had in the first place.

It's hard to fully execute a live, local presence, with stations serving their listeners and the community, when stations continually undersell themselves to the point where they can't maintain a staff presence. Sure they can maintain a skeletal staff, but it's one that is burdened moreso by the daily minutiae to make the operation run, rather than effectively creating the content/executing the promotions necessary to maintain a noticeable foothold in the community.

I've talked with a few of my colleagues in a few different states, and some of them have similar stories. Some are in okay situation, and some are dealing with situations. One thing I've noticed is that there seems to be a greater drop in ad rates. How can stations survive if ads are being sold for pennies?

You're right, live and local needs to be the wave of the future, along with originally-generated content that can be a driver to interactive platforms (web sites, phone apps, etc.) Live voices can bring value to sponsors, and in turn, maintain rate integrity and drive revenue. But it's more than simple reads....like the lazy man's morning show, the syndicated, stale prep sheet services that adds nothing to content. The old radio staple, the on-air giveaway, is a good tactic, but with record companies in shambles, the main giveaway from a decade ago is almost nonexistent. It's quite the conundrum, to be sure, but radio has to find a way to do something that they've failed at for the better part of more than the last decade: find and develop talent.

By the way, HD radio isn't the solution. The "HD Radio-as-savior" theory is dead. Therefore, HD radio is dead. Ibiquity, Clear Channel,and all of the other major investors in the technology have screwed up the implementation, the cost, and the marketing of it beyond belief. It's a cost-suck for anyone who dares to throw money at it. Why? Look at the landscape now:

HD radio cannot be found in every automobile. In fact, ask a random person what they think HD radio is. Most times, you'll get a blank stare. (In contrast, ask them what satellite radio or an Ipod is. Note the difference.)

Automakers and SiriusXM install radios with the service, and a complimentary 6 to 12 month subscription already activated.

Automakers are now including Ipod docking stations in their new cars...some have integrated video in the passenger areas.

Where is radio in all of this? Getting left behind. Because many are still in the 1990's-era mindset of competing with themselves, cutting on human resources, and squeezing the people they've got left even harder on things that don't advance the industry to the next generation of listeners. And some may think they're trying, but they're really not.

I'll agree with you. Radio's not at the horse-and-buggy stage yet....the door hasn't completely closed, but the door is moving at an increasingly rapid pace.

But I don't know that broadcast organizations are willing to invest properly to give them a fighting chance at the future.

I read a J. D. Colliano post a few weeks back talking about how Clear Channel is lobbying to get ownership caps lifted even further than what they are now.
Their argument, as it goes, is that they realize radio isn't competing with just other radio stations anymore, so in order to compete with SiriXM, Ipods, and other forms of in-car or other portable medium, that they need to further consolidate in order to succeed. What self-serving garbage.
Clear Channel started the ball rolling downhill in this ruinous period a decade ago when they did slash anything they could see, when THEY DIDN'T HAVE COMPETITION FROM NEW TECHNOLOGIES.
As Colliano said, Clear Channel's lobbying couldn't be because their private-equity owners realize now that there's no way they are going to be able to pay down the billions in debt they owe, is it?
Any radio operator, small or large, that is carbon-copying the Clear Channel effort of the last 10-12 years, via cheap network formatted programming, no local presence, no/bad interactive platforms, and a labor force stretched to the limits will probably eat it in the coming years.