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?

Thatâ€s right folks! Perry had images of funnyman beau Russell Brandâ€s face painted on her finger nails for the occasion. {E! Online} She told Ellen DeGeneres in a post-show interview that she did it because he could not attend the VMAs with her since he was shooting an upcoming movie in New York.

What do you think? Awwwww! Or Whaaaaaaat?

We werenâ€t sure what to make of it, but Ms. Teenage Dream (and Rolling Stone’s September cover girl) did cause us to wonder what else you could have painted on your nails if you really wanted an original manicure.

Turns out the latest trends in nail art are a direct reflection of a younger generationâ€s obsessions – specifically, technology and junk food.

It seems the newest in nail art is having the icon for your favorite Internet browser painted on. Apparently blogger Mamipeko decided to request browser icons be painted on her nails, and the manicurist she went to delivered, using a nude polish as a base and detailing the icons for Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox, Google Chrome, Safari and Opera. {Walyou}

Considering the information generationâ€s obsession with technology and the Web, we figure it’s not unlikely that this idea will catch on, especially since news has spread through the blogosphere. Many others have already followed suit, requesting the Apple icon, Super Mario Brothers images and the Twitter bird as part of their manicures. {Walyou}

This could take the "I'm a PC" thing in a completely new direction

And if you think that is crazy, get this: photos of a set of manicured nails painted with the logos for various snacks and sodas have been circulating the blogosphere of late as well. You can brand your hands with Doritos, Oreos, Goldfish, Mountain Dew and Dr. Pepper if you so choose. {the gloss}

Since much has been made of the importance of appealing to generation Y for any business to remain relevant into the future, we canâ€t really say technology and junk food nail art is such a bad idea. And compared to Lindsay Lohan’s manicure meltdown, the latest nail expressions are pretty harmless. Besides being obsessed with snacks and the Internet, the current younger generation does seem to be particularly inclined toward wearing T-shirts, handbags, sweatpants and other apparel with brand logos plastered across them, which is another point in this type of manicureâ€s favor. We can, however, point out that if you are a grown, respectable woman this is one trend to highly consider skipping. Unless of course youâ€re Katy Perry.

Come September, consumers can purchase directly from marcjacobs.com

Reluctance to embrace technology and the Internet, however, has been the norm for luxury fashion brands. Most labels feared department stores would be angry if designers and their wealthy customers dealt directly with one another. A large number of brands relied on department store sites and others like Net-a-Porter to sell their goods online, but the state of the economy has forced department stores to cut steep prices, angering luxury companies that were already worrying about their relevance into the future and ability to compete with knock-off retailers. {The New York Times}

“I was so annoyed last year that I wished no one had our merchandise,” President and Vice Chairman of Mar Jacobs Robert Duffy told the New York Times. “All the department stores were panicked, and they were marking things down.”

Duffy also suggested that the online store for Marc Jacobs may offer exclusive merchandise to attract customers. {Elle}

Word on the street is Jimmy Choo, Hugo Boss, Vince, Lancôme, St. John, Theory, Kiehlâ€s, Lilly Pulitzer, Donna Karan and La Perla will soon or have already launched e-commerce stores on their own Web sites. It seems high fashion is finally realizing profits on clothes sold directly to consumers will be much higher with no middleman taking a cut or dictating prices.

High fashion has everything to gain by taking their products to their own Web pages, but the consumer may end up being the loser in this equation if luxury retailers pull their merchandise from department stores altogether and spike their prices. That may be unlikely to happen immediately, since the economic downturn has caused many aspirational customers to reduce spending on designer clothing, but when the recession truly fades and people begin spending more, high fashion prices might soar above skyscrapers.

Or yourself, for that matter.

Take CNN Editor Octavia Nasr for example. On Wednesday , Ms. Nasr, who has been the chief Middle East correspondent at CNN for the last 20 years, was fired from her job after making this comment on her Twitter page on the 4th of July : “Sad to hear of the passing of Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah.. One of Hezbollah’s giants I respect a lot..”

Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah is often considered by many to be affiliated with terrorism. Over the next few days that followed her controversial and uncalculated tweet, outrage ensued across the internet, from Twitter to a string of political blogs, all heavily criticizing the now former CNN Editor for her careless 140-character remark.

The overwhelming reaction led her to post this blog entry on CNN.com two days later. In it, she apologizes (“It’s something I deeply regret”) and explains that she “used the words ‘respect’ and ‘sad’ because to me as a Middle Eastern woman, Fadlallah took a contrarian and pioneering stand among Shia clerics on woman’s rights. He called for the abolition of the tribal system of ‘honor killing.’ He called the practice primitive and non-productive. He warned Muslim men that abuse of women was against Islam.” A few paragraphs later, she added this disclaimer : “This does not mean I respected him for what else he did or said. Far from it.”

Her apology post might have sufficed with regards to the general public, but not for CNN.

On Tuesday, a CNN official said that Octavia Nasr had made an “error of judgment” that “did not meet CNNâ€s editorial standards.” Following that, Ms. Parisa Khosravi, the senior vice president of international newsgathering for CNN Worldwide, wrote in an internal memo on Wednesday that after speaking with Nasr that particular morning, “we have decided that she will be leaving the company” because “at this point, we believe that her(Nasr’s) credibility in her position as senior editor for Middle Eastern affairs has been compromised going forward.” {New York Times}

This entire incident here is a reminder that what you say, especially on the internet, can always come back to haunt you. Not just the journalist who is expected to be objective and unbiased, but also to the average person at home. These days, with the internet being such a universal commodity and also so easily accessible for everyone, caution should always be exercised with regards to posting information online, be it comments or stories of any kind.

Reporting in the age of social media is even more of a tight rope when you consider the pressure to interact with viewers, and share enough background to seem personable while maintaining an air of being unbiased. It’s certainly not coincidental that nearly every CNN program and personality participates on Twitter and Facebook. Michael Arrington makes the case for allowing journalists to share more opinions for more honest reporting, and we have to agree. {TechCrunch}

Unfortunately, we aren’t there yet. And when you are a journalist as prolific as Octavia Nasr, even brief statements take on a whole new meaning. A 20 year career ruined by a 4 year old, 140-character medium? That’s just cruel.

"Lalalalala, not listening"

Prince, in an exclusive interview with the Daily Mirror, proclaimed that his new album “20Ten” will not be sold online.  The reason Prince won’t sell his music online?  “The Internet is completely over.”  The pop star also pointed out that online distributors “won’t pay me in advance for it, and they complain when they don’t get it.” {Mashable}

Rather than distribute the album online, Prince will release the album to readers of the Mirror and other print publications in Europe.  Surely that’ll work, because we all know how well print publications are doing at the moment. Or perhaps it could help increase sales of the publications that have Prince’s album packed in.  In the US, the album will be sold more traditionally through Warner Bros., presumably in physical form only.

In 2007, Prince banned the use of his music on sites like YouTube, Pirate Bay and eBay, going so far as to levy lawsuits against the sites.  It wouldn’t be all that surprising if his new album shows up on the Pirate Bay or other sites shortly after release, just to spite the artist.  Not that we would ever condone pirating music.

Perhaps Prince’s next album will be released on 8-track and Betamax (for you retro video lovers) only so nobody can easily get it online.  With the way the world is moving, saying the Internet is over is just silly. He’s still a legend, but the internet is a big, flashing sign of the times.

Condé Nast closed the doors on Gourmet last October, but President of Consumer Marketing for Condé Nast Robert Sauerberg said the brand was never completely shut down.

“By focusing on a new way to meet consumer needs, tap into our deep branding, and approach our content differently, we came up with a product that re-imagines Gourmet and revalues engagement,” CEO Chuck Townsend said. “We are extremely pleased with the magazine apps we have developed as part of our R&D efforts, however Gourmet Live is profoundly different. We approached this like a tech company, utilizing the rich assets of a media company, keeping Condé Nast at the forefront of content innovation.”

He said Gourmet Live aims to attract a younger, Web-savvy audience in addition to previous readers of Gourmet magazine.

Gourmet Live adds a twist to the future of magazines. Previously, it was commonly agreed upon that the future of magazines was on the Internet, but individual apps are a relatively new development.

What is most interesting is Townsendâ€s statement that a technological approach was taken. He also said Gourmet Live is “not a magazine and itâ€s not a digital version of a magazine.” What is it then? If other magazines choose to follow the same path, will the word magazine and/or our current idea of what that is become obsolete in the future? We also worry about the quality of the content for such apps if technology is considered foremost in development, though the bright side is the potential for struggling publications to find new footing in the digital realm.

In order to rebrand itself as a viable shopping source, today eBay will be unveiling The Inside Source, an online fashion and lifestyle magazine which will present current fashion and pop culture trends, in turn directing customers to certain items and vendors that fit within those trends.

The idea seems like a smart move for eBay, as it will certainly give the site a more polished, stylish update — but we wonder how The Inside Source will be marketed in order to bring in people who normally wouldn’t shop on eBay.

Read the full story {Bits Blog via NY Times}