You have made statements about what is supposedly wrong, but I don't recall anything concrete as your alternative.
Let´s look at ratings, where you say "And I'll still say who cares about ratings".
Advertising buyers need a metric to justify their ad buys. Going back historically, we had circulation figures for newspapers. That allowed the establishment of ad rates based on the potential number of people reached.
Going back to the early 30's, advertisers demanded measurement of radio audiences and radio ratings began. Like circulation data for print, the medium paid for their own measurement because, without ratings, they would be at a disadvantage against other media and not receive much, if any, ad buys.
So, essentially, every owner, manager, seller and employee of any station that hopes to get agency buys cares about ratings.
Small stations in large markets that can not compete for audiences don't have any motivation to buy ratings. Similarly, even the biggest stations in the smallest markets and towns don't get enough audience to be "worth the time" by ad agencies.
This is all a matter of economics that affects the entire industry. Without audience measurement, even more today than ever, advertisers will simply place their money in other members of the media family.
This perspective on ratings is just one example of how your points of view, while perhaps altruistic and noble, are not practical and would definitely not be profitable.
Ok, for once I will put my points into a long form type. I mainly haven't done this because I've rarely been in front of a computer, usually on my phone.
I understand your point on the ratings system. You speak of Advertisers needing a metric to justify their purchases. I do not agree. While the newspaper did have a circulation number, radio has had a feature that doesn't need a circulation number. It's called "everybody listens to radio". It's there, in your car and usually in your home. It's free. No subscription required. Therefore, it stands to reason that there will be a certain number of listeners, regardless of the number, that will listen (providing the content fits what they want).
Now, if I did want to look at my ratings...as I have said before....I would use a combination of Social Media (modern adults), bumper stickers and advertisers word to prove my success. I would also count on a local "ratings" done by a magazine. Something where they have the community vote to elect their "Favorite", and based on the votes and the count on Social Media, I could say "our station reaches these people constantly, plus more that tune in and out.
As far as ad buying agencies. I get it, they control the world and aren't going away. But in my small market, they controlled 10% of the ads. And i still believe that radio in today's age is more "small market" than ever before. With the access of MP3's, streaming music and YouTube...why on earth would most people want a radio station? Why? Simple, because it can offer something that those systems cannot. Content related to the listener. Specific programming. Items related to the community they serve (that is of course, if they are still doing that and are not simply just a jukebox on autopilot). Like the small station I learned to run back home, we sold 85% of our ads to local businesses. We had sales staff that went to that local Pizza shop. We talked to that Farmers Market. We reached that corner gas station. To most, that's a waste of time. It's too little money. Doesn't work they say.
Well I don't agree. I would rather have 50 little gas stations than one large client that annoys us, takes half our rate and lets their ad agency push our talent around until the point where we have to figure out what to do because they pay half the bills. No thanks. And I am a firm believer in selling the clients on our station. I wouldn't just say "buy us because we're a radio station and we're better than TV", I would make it a point to let that business owner know that 1. We are dedicated to our station and format, 2. We are dedicated to keeping our listeners happy (by including them in polls on the station and listening to their calls and inviting them to send in their thoughts), 3. We are dedicated to making sure our ad package for them is exactly what their business needs and is not going to waste their money and 4. I would make sure our social media is dedicated to actually providing information to our listeners that keeps them engaged both on the air and off the air.
Now, as far as the competition. I get that ratings help stations battle and stay fresh and innovative. Totally get that. However, why I complain so much about them is because in today's raitings....a 2nd or 3rd place station just "doesn't cut it"! That is pathetic! I understand the race to be #1, but not every station in the market can be #1 and it's not correct to fight them all together. Why is an R&B station that's higher than the talk station a bad thing? R&B people aren't listening to RUSH! They should be broken down by format if you're going to do ratings for pete's sake. And, there is nothing wrong with being #2 or #3, if you audience truly loves you. Do you know how many times I watched owners like iHeart blow up a station that JUST SWITCHED and hasn't even really had time to gather a following? It's ridiculous! Or a station that has a following just gets ruined because they haven't made # 1 in a while, even if their ad dollars are not affected. Case in point, why I get so angry at Cox for killing 97.3 The Coast. THAT STATION WAS AMAZING! It had a "cult" like following. But, the management believed the music was too old and people where going away.
SERIOUSLY? Let me get this straight....I, a 30 year old, am too old to listen to old music? So me, and my group of friends (and there are others like us) listen to the early 80s music because we do not care for what is to be "our music" don't count? And what about the people who grew up with that music? They're not dead yet! JESUS MAN THEY AREN'T EVEN OVER 60 YET!
That....that is what makes me so mad. That is a poor decision and most of the time it's due to "ratings". Ratings that aren't #1!!!! It's so bad!!!! That is why I no longer believe in the current rating system. I think it's flawed in many ways. No home phones to call, people with the black boxes that don't really reflect the listening public......it's just all out of whack. Social Media likes and actual listener participation means more to me on how my station is doing than a ratings company I have to pay for that tells me if I'm good or not. No, I'll know if I am good....if my advertisers tell me that their ads worked. If my listeners tell me they love the programing. That is how I know how good we are.
Now, do I make more sense? I mean, you can still disagree with me but....until I put it into play...which I plan to do....only then will I know if it does or doesn't work. I believe it will, but testing is the only way to see it happen. It worked in our small, yet large market. I bet it would work everywhere.