New programming is going to be needed, and it is my thinking that the time to try the new is now, while at least some broadcasters still have flush money coming in to develop them.
I don't totally disagree with you here. As I've mentioned before, broadcasters, especially the large ones, are frequently researching both new ideas and how to keep the existing ones fresh. Broadcast research and consulting are industries themselves. People like to complain about them, and that's sometimes justified, but a good consultant is telling you what your audience wants to hear and enabling you to deliver exactly that. Putting something new on requires taking something else off. The broadcast spectrum is a finite resource. Broadcasters have to be able to make money, and they can't take away stations that are contributing to their bottom lines in order to replace them with something that might or might not work. I realize you'll probably say, "That's why they should test on AM," but you have to test your new ideas where your target audience will go. That's not AM radio. No test will yield meaningful results if tried there. The Big A often says, "we program for the people who are listening." One can argue for or against the wisdom of that, but, if your only option is AM, that's all you can do. My 22 year-old niece isn't going to AM for anything. She wouldn't even go to AM if I put her own personal playlist there.
A suggestion made above that broadcast radio is scheduled for the scrap heap is an anathema to me. Will I be telling my grandkids one day "Yessiree, once upon a time you get entertainment outta this little box. Didn't cost nothing and ya didn't have to subscribe to nothing."
Kids today are also getting their entertainment out of little boxes; they're called their phones. It's true that you have to pay for your data plan. Most people, though, need that anyway at this point. If you want commercial free entertainment, you have to pay for that, too, but your phone gives you plenty of access to free entertainment. I don't see the transmitter, at least on FM, going away in my lifetime, but it will eventually happen.
Also, the idea that local radio will be no more is disconcerting on a lot of levels. An internet radio station can be a great one, but local it isn't.
While you can find internet stations that cater to particular areas, you're mostly right that internet stations aren't local. I don't like the idea of local radio potentially going away either, but it doesn't seem like the average listener cares that much. Usage of terrestrial radio started going down when the iPhone and Android hit critical mass, and local radio was more prominent then than it is now. If local was an important factor in choosing an entertainment source, usage of radio wouldn't have declined. One area where both of us likely agree, however, is that radio will be missed if it goes away. If people no longer have a reliable place to go when the weather gets bad or the power goes out, they're going to be unhappy and asking why, but private companies can't run an industry that can't be supported consistently and over the long term.
The idea of Entertainment Radio is to test whether 2026 listeners will respond to programming that doesn't irritate, and which is presented for them, as opposed to their having to search for it on the internet. Any and all audio can be found on the web. A radio programmer just makes it easier by finding the good stuff and putting it out there for easy consumption. Old Time Radio was an idea because I thought it would be inexpensive as a way to get started - not an end in itself.
If you want Old Time Radio, you already have it. Yes, that's right. It's already being tested and already being delivered. If you go to iHeart and search "Old Time Radio," you'll find plenty of it, and it's available on-demand. I realize you're probably not a huge fan of that company, but it offers plenty of choices on its website and app. That's where it does its testing. That's where it tries new ideas. iHeart tests its ideas by gauging how many people listen to those streams and who those people are. While it can't discern how many people hear each stream, it can tell exactly how many devices are listening at any single time and exactly who is logged in on those devices. The ones that reach enough of the people it wants to target might well eventually get promoted to terrestrial radio, especially if research indicates the target audience is amenable to tuning it in there.
It seems to me we should be putting heads together, not butting heads. Programmers like you have the experience. Interested listeners like me have the ideas (although I am sure you have ideas of your own as well). We should be focusing on how an idea COULD work, instead of why they WON'T work - especially when my overall interest is not necessarily what you or I want, but what broadcast radio is going to need.
When coming up with a new idea, you have to look at both sides of it. Yes, you have to consider how and why it might work, but you have to consider the opposing side of it, too. You mentioned earlier that broadcasters should test their idea when they still have the money to develop them. If they don't stop to also consider why a new idea might not work, they won't have that money for long. A good programmer DOES care about what interested listeners like yourself want and will do what (s)he can to keep you listening, at least so long as the sales department can find advertisers who want to reach you.