What if no one was paying attention.

In today’s "New York Times", Bono opines that ISPs should monitor their traffic, that creators need to be compensated for the distribution of their works.  I’ve got no problem with the underlying concept, that artists should be paid.  Nor do I think that ISPs should necessarily get off scot-free.  But what’s most interesting to me is no one cares what Bono has to say.

Aged news.  That’s what the "Daily Show" called the "New York Times".  Reading today’s newspapers I got the curious feeling that I knew everything already.  As for those articles that extolled returning to the past, I’d debate them, but it would be pointless.  Oldsters are under the illusion that they can steer, that they can determine outcomes.  What we’ve learned so far in the twenty first century is we follow the public.  Rather than rant and rave at injustice, better to go online and try to figure out where it’s all going.

The problem with Bono’s precept is despite their protestations, the major labels no longer have a lock on distribution.  Their power is limited.  Most music is attached to no corporation, no one has power over the rights other than the creator.  And the creator is doing everything in his power to get his message out to potential fans.

It’s no longer the songwriter bitching at the publisher owned by the multinational that his songs are being stolen.  It’s now a college student, even a high school student, creating a song and instantly giving it away online, angling for some traction.

And getting a story about his production in the newspaper probably won’t help him.  Because his audience doesn’t read the newspaper!

There’s almost nothing to read in the L.A. "Times", truly, the paper’s so thin as to be a facsimile of a good Website, twenty four hours behind the times.  And the "New York Times" is so beholden to its style, and the movers and shakers of the New York scene, that it’s a debate amongst people who think they’ve got power but don’t.

Old media is killing itself.  By insisting the way it’s always been done is the way it should be.  That’s the lesson that eludes Bono.  It’s not about protecting the old media monopolies, it’s about them adjusting to the new landscape, in order to survive.  What’s a bigger threat, the ability to make an HD movie at home or theft on the Web?  I’d say the former.  Because we’ve learned in the twenty first century that he who grows up outside the system, a system that has very few opportunities for entry, will end up wanting to play by himself.  MySpace sold out to Fox and is almost dead.  Facebook is independent and thriving.  The behemoth most feared is Google, not Viacom.

And old media and old people don’t understand that we no longer pay attention to that which does not interest us.  What Randy Phillips and the L.A. "Times" don’t understand is we don’t have to listen to "Empire State Of Mind" if we don’t want to. That’s the most interesting angle, not the limited penetration of the single.  Ubiquity is a thing of the past.  And just like those who watch Fox News don’t watch MSNBC, and vice versa, those who like Lady GaGa don’t give a shit about the Brooklyn scene.  We no longer live in an homogenous society, with a common lingua franca, rather we’re all heading to the hills in a different direction, in search of that which appeals exactly to us.

We live in a Tower of Babel society.  Which cannot be fathomed by a music industry that believed in the silo of MTV exposure.  And whereas every cable system has a limited number of channels, the Internet is inherently unlimited.

So the rules have completely changed.  It’s less about marketing than quality.  If Bono wanted to get traction today, rather than rant in the "New York Times", he’d do what he does best, cut a record with his band.  Something so good that the new avenues of distribution would pick it up and drive people to U2.  Where you monetize in the food chain is an interesting question, but not as interesting as the death of the old paradigm, one of scarcity, with the public chomping like lemmings upon that which is fed to them.

Distribution has been flattened.  Anybody can play.  In news, music, movies, political opinion, you name it.  Either try to establish a dominant distribution platform, or focus purely on content.

Good luck dominating in distribution if you’re an oldster.  Ever notice that the Web is ruled by youngsters, developing better plumbing and sites?

And if you focus on content, know that your Armani suit and your friends mean nothing.  It’s the final product, now more than ever.  Doesn’t matter how much you spend, it’s whether the audience is titillated/thrilled/informed/riveted.  And this is only going to get worse.

Sure, there are going to be winners and losers.  But dominance is a thing of the past.  Just like the TV networks have lost market share to cable outlets, stars’ careers are being cut down to size by the plethora of alternatives.  Mariah Carey’s album stiffed because we weren’t forced to hear it.  We weren’t tuned into MTV and we don’t listen to the radio.  This is the exact opposite of the Tommy Mottola paradigm.  Your customer is no longer the intermediary, the radio station, the newspaper, the TV network, but the fan.

Isn’t it curious that radio, newspapers and TV are in trouble, whereas Google is laughing all the way to the bank?  Play in Google world.  With a product that serves the customer first.  Google triumphed not by corralling surfers, by forcing them to use the search engine, but by delivering the results people wanted.

The way to success is to win the hearts and minds of the customer and build from there.  Anything else is just a waste of time.