A quick search shows that most brands are still attached to the old layout – and considering the speed at which fashion usually embraces anything new,  that’s not much of a surprise. They won’t have too long to cling to the familiar: on March 31st all pages will get the timeline treatment. Though the fact that Facebook is discouraging overt promotions or headlines in favor of photography and visuals should make fashion and design brands feel right at home.

In case you need a bit of inspiration, here are a few timelines from some of our favorite fashion early adopters.

Burberry

The company now allocates 60% of their marketing budget to digital media, which the Financial Times reports as 3x the market average. Considering the disparity between how much magazines make from ads, and how much the average blog makes from ads (hint: nowhere near as much as magazines with similar audience levels do), that’s a very significant shift. Granted, the focus of Burberry’s online efforts seem to be social media, but the shift is promising for digital publishers of all types. Part of the reason that online publishers can’t command the amount of money that print publishers do comes from the way budgets are allocated. If the advertising budget is comprised of 80% print ads, spread across 20 magazines, that leaves hundreds of blogs, social networks and various websites competing for the remaining 20%. You don’t have to be a star mathematician to understand the disadvantage that places online publishers at.

Print ads, in spite of the fact that they can’t be measured or tracked in any of the ways that online ads can, have long remained the holy grail for advertisers. Vogue has roped a few up and coming bloggers into their “Influencer” Network, Glamour is adding QR codes to certain ads and trying to increase interactivity, but these programs usually launch with 9 or 10 brands willing to try something different. And the remaining 200 or so ad pages are filled with companies who typically spend hundreds of thousands of dollars each year on an ad format that hasn’t changed in a century or so.

That’s not to say Burberry is abandoning all things traditional media: they aren’t. The upcoming Body fragrance, which launched on Facebook, will have accompanying television ads – but they’ll premiere on YouTube.

Even more notable is that the company admitted the Facebook campaign, which offered a free perfume sample to fans, wasn’t any less expensive than sticking a scented flap in a magazine. Judging by the numbers though, we’d have to say it seems that they’ve gotten more than their money’s worth.

Out of 500,000 new fans (the Burberry Facebook page currently has more than 8 million fans), 250,000 registered for a sample with “the majority” giving permission for Burberry to contact them in the future. We can’t think of any magazine that can deliver that.

Burberry has long been a bit of a maverick when it comes to how they promote themselves online, so it’s too early to call this an industry trend, but we like the direction they’re going in.

“You have to be totally connected to anyone who touches your brand. If you donâ€t do that, I donâ€t know what your business model is in five years.” – Burberry CEO Angela Ahrendts

In spite of the fact that Facebook is the number one site for wealthy Internet denizens in several countries, some luxury brands continue to be holdouts when it comes to getting involved with the largest social media site in the world. For those who have decided to be part of modern marketing, rather than hoping it goes away, who’s getting their social strategy right?

L2, the NYU think tank that tracks social media and online efforts among luxury brands, recently published a Facebook IQ report with data from Buddy Media that attempts to answer that question.

The "Genius" brands of L2's Facebook IQ Report

Unsurprising to us, only one fashion brand made the top 10 (well done, Tory Burch). BMW took the top spot, and among the “Genius” level brands, automobile makers in general had a strong showing. While fashion brands are still struggling a bit, spirits & champagne brands had a respectable showing as did beauty brands like Clinique, Bare Escentuals, Benefit and Bobbi Brown. Those brands not only allow fans to post to their pages, most do Genius things like actually responding to create a 2-way conversation as opposed to a broadcast.

Hint: that’s what makes social media different from traditional media. Fortunately Facebook realizes that there are enough brands who will ignore that important differentiator for as long as possible, so in August brand pages will be forced to *gasp* allow their fans to post comments, making social interaction mandatory. That should be fun to watch.

The ranking was based on 4 primary criteria: size and velocity (how large the brand community is, how fast it’s growing); content (types of content, variety, e-commerce integration); engagement (if a brand posts and no one is paying attention…); and integration (no Facebook page should be an island).

All good criteria that help to identify which brand efforts are making the most of Facebook beyond fan counts. It’s not that Burberry’s millions of Facebook fans isn’t impressive: it’s definitely an achievement from a company that’s made online marketing a priority. In a case study in the report though, Tory Burch’s end-to-end integration with “Like” buttons on each product page of their e-commerce site, header and footer links that actively drive people to their Facebook page, and f-commerce Facebook store to complete the circle pushed them further ahead in spite of a fan count that’s a mere 6% of Burberry’s.

We take a similar view of influence: reaching large numbers of people on the web, on a social network or anywhere else is great, but how those people respond is even more telling. It will be interesting to see how upcoming fan page changes that push brands into two-way interaction will affect future rankings, but now is as good a time as any to benchmark the brands already getting things right, and which are luxuriously anti-social.

Download the L2 Facebook IQ report here.

A few months ago, we defended Baileyâ€s collection (after all, at least he made an attempt to take advantage of modern technology and business practices), but for his Fall 2011 Burberry Prorsum show, which took place this week in London, we thought there would be no need for Signature9 to come to Baileyâ€s defense. The clothes he turned out are overtly fall (Cathy Horyn at The New York Times dinged Bailey for ignoring spring influences in favor of clothes that could be worn right away last season), colorful, 60s-inspired and overall quite charming (love the cow print!). It seems, though, that many fashion critics are still unimpressed by Burberry and still complaining that Baileyâ€s embrace of technology has left his creativity in the dust.

Booth Moore at the Los Angeles Times said the show was “cute” and that “Bailey was right to keep the focus on outerwear,” but criticized Baileyâ€s clothes for being too far from the seasonless looks shoppers crave these days, which is funny considering Bailey was criticized last season precisely for being seasonless.

Suzy Menkes at The New York Times said Burberry was thinking too big, writing that “what [Burberry] gained in bombast, the once-quirky line lost in charm, cheek and irony that the designer Christopher Bailey has previously brought to the Burberry Prorsum brand.” She also said, “Burberry has to be careful that its brilliant and forward-looking embrace of the Internet does not leave too much behind — especially that ironic take on tradition, the British countryside and the brand heritage that Mr. Bailey can tweak so well.”

Looks like we need to weigh in again. Lucky for Bailey, though, it seems the general consensus among smaller fashion bloggers is that Burberryâ€s recent collection was highly impressive, and not just in comparison to the last show. We know we little old bloggers arenâ€t Anna Wintour or anything, but Fashionista, for instance, called Bailey “a master of the brand he has brought into the 21st century with ease.”

We wonâ€t go on a rant about the importance of digital technology and the urgent need for fashion types to make like Bailey and embrace it already, but we will say this: thank goodness for Christopher Bailey. The showâ€s coats looked warm and realistic for winter, the tweeds and tights were just what we want to be wearing come fall and there was the perfect amount of bright colors mixed with snowy whites and neutrals – and Baileyâ€s managed to do this all while catering to the modern need for instant gratification by making the collection available very soon, not months from now like most other brands†clothes. Bravo, Bailey!

We haven’t found a measurable way to tally best and worst dressed just yet, so we’ll just just round up the larger trends and add our favorites to the mix. Click on images to view at a larger size.

Golden Globes 2011 Fashion Trends

Pretty in Pink and Red or Dead

Save: Julianne Moore in Lanvin, Julianna Margulies in vintage Yves Saint Laurent

Skip: January Jones in Versace

Don’t get us wrong, January Jones looks great and men probably got a lot more interested in the red carpet after seeing that dress; but the line between vamp and tramp is thin and we’re not sure how many women would be able to toe the line in this dress or any “inspired by” designs.

What They All Wore

1st row L to R: Julianne Moore (large image) in Lanvin, Claire Danes in Calvin Klein, Megan Fox in Armani Prive, Lea Michele in Oscar de la Renta, Heidi Klum in Marc Jacobs

2nd row L to R: Naya Rivera, Natalie Portman in Viktor & Rolf, Emma Stone in Calvin Klein, January Jones (large image) in Versace

3rd row L to R:  Julianna Margulies in vintage Yves Saint Laurent, Christina Hendricks, Edie Falco in Valentino, Sofia Vergara in Vera Wang

Alexander McQueen Moves Forward

Goodbye Mr. McQueen, hello Ms. Burton. Long live McQueen.

Style.com covered the passing of Alexander McQueen and the showing of the final collection he designed, but something that was equally important this year was the success of Sarah Burtonâ€s first show as the new designer for the McQueen label. The passing of such a genius creative mind was indeed tragic, and the showing of McQueenâ€s last collection was a special moment, but Burtonâ€s signal that the brand can honor McQueenâ€s legacy while moving forward was absolutely stellar.

John Gallianoâ€s Dior Couture Wows

Dior haute couture was in full bloom this year when John Galliano showed his Spring 2011 collection of flower-inspired looks. The imagery and execution of the designs combined with the high, tulip-like hair of the models for a full package display of gorgeousness and perhaps our favorite moment in fashion of 2010.

The error page displayed when typing in robertocavalli.com from Google Chrome. That is not gifted.

L2, a luxury think tank focusing on digital innovation, recently published their second annual Digital IQ index, a ranking of luxury brands’ online initiatives. It’s a balanced report that takes into account things like the brand website, online marketing, social media presence and influence, and mobile offerings.

So it’s no surprise to see brands like Burberry, who took hits from critics for their strong internet engagement, labeled as digital “geniuses.”  Ralph Lauren, one of the first fashion labels with a dedicated mobile shop, and Coach, who’ve been aggressively pursuing blogger and social media engagement, also understandably fall into the genius category. Louis Vuitton’s site isn’t the best for search, but there’s a real commitment to online content via Nowness and Gucci’s relaunched digital flagship takes advantage of HTML5 to mostly replace an overdependence on Flash that still hobbles many fashion brand websites.

While the exact order of the top 10 or so sites could be up for discussion, they seem to be fairly accurately positioned. Past the top 10, however, things get strange and seem to prop up some of fashion’s idiot savants. Brands who offer beautiful products that generate buzz and desire, but fail at the basics: an attractive website that’s accessible to users across various devices.

Imran Amed, editor of the Business of Fashion, points out that Chanel – ranked number 11 and classified as “gifted,” has extremely limited e-commerce (fragrance and beauty products in the US only). Perhaps 10 years ago, e-commerce would be an innovative “extra,” but in 2010 we’re well past maturity for online shopping. Overlooking that does seem a bit odd.  Christian Louboutin, whose slow, Flash-heavy site (not viewable on the iPad, iPhone and many mobile devices) drags on a high-speed internet connection with not one, but two kitschy intros, recently launched e-commerce. Unfortunately, it’s difficult to find from the homepage (if you’re patient enough to give it the 2 minutes or so it takes to load), not to mention the fact that counterfeiters are still doing e-commerce and social media better than the brand itself. The online store doesn’t appear in a search for “Christian Louboutin” on Google or Bing in either the paid or unpaid sections, and YouTube videos haven’t changed that. That they’re classified in the same category as Calvin Klein, who along with QR-code billboards that bridge mobile and offline marketing, has livestreamed shows and made obvious integrated efforts with Facebook and social media is frankly a disservice to both brands.

Roberto Cavalli, who can’t figure out how to do a simple redirect (type in robertocavalli.com without the www. and you end up with a 404 page not found message), is the lowest “gifted” brand, but really? This is what we’re letting pass as gifted?

Social media, and thousands or even millions of followers can’t excuse or make up for a dated website lacking basic functionality. The Digital IQ index is needed, and a good step towards getting brands to put some effort into their online efforts. Rewarding the companies who are failing at the basics with extra credit for playing well with others (via social media) won’t help change the fact that they’re failing at the online basics though.

Burberry models were forced to remove their killer heels to make it down the runway at London Fashion Week

The fashion business being what it is (and by “what it is,” we mean obsessively terrified of the Internet and of the firm belief that if everyone ignores it, it will go away), the other general consensus is that Burberry produced a sub-par collection because the label was too focused on its online push and embrace of Internet business tools to create a high quality, inspired line.

Indeed Burberry has been one of the few members of the fashion community to embrace technology and work to use the Internet to its advantage. In addition to broadcasting past shows live in 3-D for a worldwide audience, they have an entire site devoted to the Art of the Trench and once enlisted Elle‘s Joe Zee, a top Twitter user in the fashion biz, to hijack their feed and tweet coverage of a Burberry show. Their recent show in London was available in live-stream online, with many of the clothes made available for purchase immediately afterward and set to be delivered in a few months. {The Cut}

Stupid question alert: why on earth do these smart initiatives mean Bailey cannot turn out a high quality, impressive collection? Weâ€re not mad that critics, as a whole, did not like the clothes. That is fair enough. Weâ€re just wondering how anyone comes to the conclusion that the cause is Bailey focusing too much attention on Internet business tools.

For one thing, Bailey probably does not have much to do with creating Burberryâ€s online presence. The label likely has a public relations and digital marketing team that is responsible for their push into cyber land. For another, fashion designers have been juggling creativity and business management for decades. Their ability to do so should not change just because certain business practices are evolving.

Cathy Horyn at The New York Times made the only legitimate argument for why focusing on Internet initiatives would cause a designer to turn out a less impressive collection:

“Indeed, the many leather jackets and coats — plain, studded and in gold snakeskin with stretch pants and skimpy dresses — seemed primed for Web sales; much of the collection was to be offered for immediate sale and delivered in about two months. Hence a style that was seasonless rather than overtly spring.”

That makes perfect sense. So maybe Bailey and Burberry did get this one wrong, but you know what? The Internet is the future, and everyone in fashion cannot run and hide from it forever. Those that refuse to embrace it will likely end up irrelevant very soon. Therefore, we applaud Bailey and his team at Burberry for at least making an attempt to adapt to the times. After all, what good is a high quality, outstandingly creative collection if no one outside a few magazine editors knows about it or wants to buy the clothes from it?

Louis Vuitton had asserted that Google’s practice of allowing anyone to bid on trademarked names opened the door to the sale of counterfeit items. In the US and the UK, the system even extended the right to advertisers to include trademarked brands within their ads. So if you were to search for “Louis Vuitton”, nothing would prevent Chanel from running an ad saying “Louis Vuitton is good, but Chanel is great.” That’s only an example, the luxury houses seem to have a gentleman’s agreement to not bid on their rivals names, even if the practice is legal.

While the new ruling protects Google’s ability to sell trademarked search terms, it does reverse a previous ruling which opened the doors to allowing advertisers to include trademarked names within search results. The European Court of Justice decided that advertisers who don’t make it clear that they aren’t commercially affiliated with the trademark holder can find themselves on the receiving end of a lawsuit from the brand.

This case settled trademark issues with paid search marketing,  but it also exposes the failings of Louis Vuitton and other brands when it comes to online reputation management and search engine optimization.

In US search results, all but two of the unpaid listings go to replica (read: counterfeit) sites. The two exceptions? The official Louis Vuitton site, and the brand’s Wikipedia entry. With the recent headlines, news and shopping search results push anything beyond the 2nd organic listing down, and depending on location so too does a map. Since Google doesn’t accept money for these algorithmically selected results, they don’t have the same responsibility to police what the sites sell, but there’s little doubt that the $219 purses offered at the second site listed are not authentic.

A local search result appearing to California users searching for "Louis Vuitton"

A closer look at the local results show that even there, replica sites are leading the listings. In the case of this local search result in California, they appear ahead of actual Louis Vuitton stores. In France, where trademark laws are more stringent and have favored brands more heavily, the results aren’t as bad: only four of the top 10 results go to replica websites, and half of the top listings go to authentic Louis Vuitton sites or to LVMH’s corporate site. The results in Germany, Italy and many other European countries are similar.

Even this, however, may simply be a matter of luck. If replica sites were ever to translate their content to target the approximately 5.7 million searches done outside the US, there’s a strong chance that their search ranking success could be replicated in higher positions in more non-English language searches.

To understand why this is a failing on the part of Louis Vuitton, you have to take a look at other luxury brands who’ve made online marketing a cornerstone of their branding strategy. While Louis Vuitton hasn’t exactly been sitting on the sidelines – Nowness, live runway broadcasts and other initiatives signal a real effort at strengthening their digital offerings, a look at more tech entrenched rivals show cracks in a strategy that does not consider organic search optimization.

Worldwide, Google puts the estimated number of searches for Chanel at 13 million, 9 million for Louis Vuitton and 6 million for Burberry.

Chanel, which only began selling beauty products online in recent years, and just announced plans to sell handbags online, is surprisingly strong in results. Local results show only actual Chanel boutiques, in the US, paid search ads direct users to authorized beauty retailers such as Saks Fifth Avenue, Nordstrom and Neiman Marcus. There are only 2 ads for replica websites, and of the 6 results that don’t go to official Chanel websites, 4 point to information websites like Wikipedia, About.com (a biography on Coco Chanel) and the Purse Blog.

For Burberry, who has made a strong online effort with livestream broadcasts and social media via the Art of the Trench, the results are even better. A mere 3 sites in the top 10 results are not owned by Burberry. Of those 3, two (ShopStyle and Wikipedia) point back to authorized resellers. The paid search listings are dominated by retailers, like Net-a-Porter and the Outnet, selling authentic products and not a single replica website rears its ugly head on the first page.

So what should Louis Vuitton do to reclaim their results?

Put a strategy in place that recognizes branding does not conquer all, especially when it comes to search.

While shuttering eLuxury to focus on Nowness may have been an exercise in branding, it was a mistake as far as search. The top result for anyone looking for eLuxury is now a poorly designed counterfeit site, while eluxury.com still has thousands of links from people who haven’t updated their list of authentic Louis Vuitton purchase points.

Partner up.

The only way Louis Vuitton will win the battle against counterfeiters is to embrace online partners who have a vested interest in promoting the brand. We can already hear the screams of terror about loss of control coming from luxury fanatics, but allow us to explain. Chanel, a company whose brand is as tightly controlled as any other luxury house, has done it through fragrance and beauty products. Bergdorf Goodman, Saks, Neiman Marcus are all selling the same goods, at the same prices. But it’s in their best interest to ensure that fake bottles of Chanel No 5 aren’t further diluting their opportunity at sales.

Louis Vuitton would be smart to explore distribution of sunglasses and small non-handbag accessories with online partners. eLuxury used to be that place for blogs and smaller websites, but Net-a-Porter, Saks, Neiman Marcus and many others could step in to bolster authentic distribution points without eating into market share for key items like handbags and luggage.

For Burberry, it’s distributing content through multiple media partners – fashion blogs and general interest sites alike. Very likely part of the reason live.burberry.com, the home of the brand’s livestream runway shows, appears in the top 10 results on a search of their brand name.

We understand the need to aggressively protect the brand against infringement, but all the trademark enforcements in the world will not be enough to replace an online strategy that fails to include search marketing at its core.

Spring/Summer 2010 Jewelry from Lanvin (L), Vera Wang (Center) and Dolce & Gabbana (R)

Whether you fancy long, bold necklaces or eye-catching rings, there is a statement piece with your name on it. Designers like Vera Wang, Lanvin and Dolce & Gabbana all sent their models down the catwalk with bold, yet beautiful and intricate, accessories for spring and the trend will continue for a few months. The clothes of FW2010 may have lost their rock chic edge in favor of minimalist silhouettes, but that can  offer the perfect backdrop to strong jewelry choices.

Fall/Winter 2010 statement jewelry from Vera Wang (L), Lanvin (Center) and Dolce & Gabbana (R)

The beauty of costume jewelry is that it’s an easy way to flaunt your fashion interests when you can’t do so with your clothes (hello, corporate uniform), or help transition an outfit from day to night. Here are 9 statement pieces that let your jewelry do the talking without leaving your wallet screaming.

1. Check Embossed Degrade Bangle {Burberry}
Burberry Prorsum
$195

2. Gold Armour Knuckle Ring {My Wardrobe}
Low Luv by Erin Wasson
$113.85

3. Multi Chain and Bead Necklace {Saks Fifth Avenue}
Kenneth Jay Lane
$175

4. Multi Chunky Crystal Necklace {Bloomingdale’s}
Aqua
$60

5. Blue Glass Ring {Max & Chloe}
Noir
$62

6. Mixed Chain and Pearl Bracelet {Arden B}
$19

7. Amethyst Cocktail Ring {My Wardrobe}
Kenneth Jay Lane
$123.75

8. Golden Shadow Swarovski Vitale Bracelet {Max & Chloe}
Janna Conner
$163

9. Ruby Dream Cocktail Ring {Max & Chloe}
Kenneth Jay Lane
$165