Sadly, Bern, most programmers are not as bright as you and they DO programme from the chart.
"If that's at Number Three we should be playing it".
Ditto the press ("Oh, it's a hit, we'd better write about it") and TV shows.
And sadly even WE tend to follow it, as you know. A high chart position still provokes discussion and probably relistening.
So what SHOULD the chart be?
A way of telling us WHAT IS CURRENTLY POPULAR.
That helps everyone.
If a TV commercial - not rereleased - is making swathes of punters hum along to It's Good News Week or Lily The Pink, good programmers should want to know so they can dig it out and play it to amuse their listeners.
Likewise, copyright owners should know so they can organise a release.
Ditto, retail so they can stock it.
Ditto media, so they can write a feature on The Return Of Vanilla Ice or whatever.
The chart should, quite simply, tell us what is popular.
That is INVALUABLE
It became (I started it) a marketing tool.
That's what's killed it.

the problem with the charts is that the labels spend lots of money for "scientific" research into the buying habits of the consumers - and even more money for rigging the charts.

By rigging I don

Music does appear to be on the whole, longer lived than the quick sale that will get a chart position.
I think most of us can tell a "here today gone tomorrow" release, from a song that will slow burn for years.
Therefore, there is no guarantee that any chart position can sustain a career.
A question for our programming contributor...
How much or how little control do you get in what you would actually like to air yourself?
When I was in local radio, we had to playlist certain sections of the day, luckily for me , my show was not one of them, hence I enjoyed it more.
The guys, running the playlist show before, were half of the time outside having a smoke, as they had no interest in what they were playing at all.
It is a strange world , when it is still defined what the public should hear, but it does cut down on paperwork at the end of the day.

That's a good point Martin - playlists have always been an issue in themselves, and I do think they're vital to make sure the listener gets a good mix of music they like and music we've got good reason to think they'll grow to love. We've got a big job to do to make sure a playlist works properly.

I'm a programmer, not a presenter at the moment, but I ask for presenters to contribute their personal passion as well as their understanding of their listeners to make recommendations to the playlist meeting. On some shows, presenters pick quite a few of the songs they talk about and on others presenters prefer just to talk about the playlist songs because they know where the playlist is from and how we put it together.

We put a lot of work into asking and figuring out what songs are popular (as well as forming our own opinions about what songs are good), and we've found the chart to be a poor guide to, or predictor of, the passion which turns into excitement about music or listening to the radio.

So if we're finding that, I'm puzzled that record companies whose income depends on real popularity of songs and artists, and the growth of real talent, put so much resource into a chart which doesn't help consumers to spot real hits. It actually devalues music, I think, when so many consumers don't like what's at the top of the chart - and devaluing music means that CDs become a low price commodity, with little profit to invest in new music. Looks like that's where we are now, and it pisses me off!

It may be where we are right now Bern but the tide appears to be changing

Am I naive in thinking nobody really knew what was going to be number one, back in the mid 80s and earlier? What about the excitement of Abba and the Human league both going 6-3-6-3 in successive weeks? One of my older work colleagues excitedly sat by her radio in summer 81, expecting the Human league to be Number one and to her horror,they'd gone back down to 6 and it was Aneka at Number One ! Tell me that wasn't you in that kimono JK !