I think we all expected changes at 99X, but I can't say that I expected them to be this drastic.
Before I go on, I'd first like to state that what I'm about to write is done so without any animosity whatsoever. I have no hard feelings towards Cumulus or 99X, and am grateful for the time I was able to spend there. Hosting the night shift at 99X was the first real radio gig I had, considering my start at 96.7 the Buzz was voicetracked and heard by approximately seven people on any given night. I'd also like to express my appreciation towards Leslie Fram for giving me an opportunity with the station. I was just some kid that emailed her one day and asked her to lunch, and she took a chance on me and gave me an airshift. For that, I am forever grateful.
Here's my theory on 99X: It lost its way. This isn't any one person's fault, or really any one's fault at all. If you look at the current state of alternative radio, there isn't a station out there anymore that is dominating the ratings. That's partly due to the fact that a lot of mainstream music being released is generic sounding and unimaginative, and partly due to the fact that the 18-34 listening audience is cynical and hates everything.
There isn't a clear-cut path to programming an alternative station. The people that would want to hear newer bands such as Band of Horses, Pinback, Cold War Kids, etc., have pretty much stopped listening to terrestrial radio. I had scientists do the research, and 98.3 percent of my friends who fall into the target demo no longer listen to the radio. Instead, they've turned to iPods and satellite radio, leaving it very difficult to get them back. Sure, you may grab their attention every one in awhile with a specific promotion or concert, but they all ultimately resort back to their technologically infused ways. Mind you, this is just the "alternative" listening audience. The majority of the population still does utilize the radio, and within that group, the rock audience seems to prefer the likes of Trapt and Disturbed. That's not my cup of tea, but there's obviously a demand for it, which is why those bands and active rock stations fare better.
I also think alternative radio's heavy reliance on research is contributing to its demise. When the format first debuted, new and exciting music was played, and the listeners were told it was good. Since then, the roles have reversed, and many stations are now acting like the new kid in town, looking to gain acceptance by agreeing with the other children on the playground, even if deep down they don't really agree those children. What's that? You like to eat dirt? So do I! You want to hear Pearl Jam's Jeremy again? So do I! Please be my friend. Alternative radio used to have a certain attitude that listeners were attracted to. Now that's all but gone, with repetitive playlists and a lack of risk-taking, all of which ultimately leads to a rather uneventful on-air product. But that's the current trend of the radio industry as a whole. It's frustrating, as radio is original in that it is a medium of nothing more than sound. There's so much room to experiment and be creative, but that's frowned upon in contemporary radio.
I do understand that radio is a business and that the bottom line is to make money. It's just that I've always viewed radio in the same light as, say, a professional football team. If you field a team of sub par players that don't cost you a lot of money, you're going to save money up front, sure. But your team is going to lose and draw little interest. On the other hand, if you field a team of the best players, you may have to shell out more cash, but the team will win games and ultimately create a higher revenue through ticket sales, televised games, merchandise sales, etc. If you put out a better product, you're going to make more in the long run. Most companies are choosing against this, though, and I don't quite understand it. Then again, I'm biased to creativity and don't claim to be a business mind.