We were set to pop open the champagne along with the folks at Elle, but, upon further inspection of the evidence presented, weâ€d like to declare only a partial victory – the halfway lap, if you will.

Marc Jacobs made a bang, but fashion still has a way to go before declaring social media victory.

Elle is correct to say that a decent number of designers and brands have made a push into the Facebook market. Marc Jacobs, in fact, recently ran a contest centered around Facebook to promote his new fragrance, Bang. However, if you really think about it, shouldnâ€t every designer, fashion label and retailer have some sort of Facebook presence by now? Businesses in other industries have long since figured out that a Facebook presence is necessary for success into the future.

The magazine also points to the pending launch of PassportStyle, a fashion social network through which designers can interact with their customers, which is set to go live later this week as evidence that fashion has finally risen in technology. The Web site has a great concept, but Elle is right to also point out that it may not necessarily be successful, since it seems no one has bothered to investigate whether shoppers really want to use this kind of site.

Finally, Elle says that the re-launch of Bizzy this Tuesday is an important advance because the site recommends boutiques based on ratings from users. They leave out one important factor: Bizzy recommends all sorts of local businesses from restaurants to parks and a wide variety of stores, not just clothing boutiques, so it doesnâ€t really count as a fashion-specific advance.

Overall, fashion brands and fashion startups have been making some smart social moves lately. We just wish theyâ€d hold the high praise, since most of these “innovations” should have been pushed for long ago – ya know, around the time the rest of the world started using technology for business purposes. Itâ€s certainly not too late for someone to take the lead in bringing fashion into the digital age, but many brands are still struggling with the basics. Letâ€s just get someone on it already.

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?

Sea of (fake) shoes

There’s only one problem: none of it is likely to make a significant difference. StopFakeLouboutin.com details legal actions the label has launched against counterfeiters, from raiding Chinese factories, to seizing inventory from online resellers before they could sell the fakes on auction sites.

But the biggest problem is Louboutin’s own site. Outside of gaming and fashion, most commercial brands have abandoned the all-Flash website in favor of more accessible technology that makes the content available to a wider audience, including search engines and mobile browsers. With Apple’s decision to not support Flash on the iPhone or iPad, one might hope that even online and fashion would move towards the best practice of using flash only for certain elements (like video).

Unfortunately, many labels remain stuck in the year 2000, and assault visitors with music and video that plays unprompted, enormous Flash sites that take minutes to download even on broadband (forget about a mobile connection), and no clear way for visitors or search spiders to navigate the sites outside of flashing images that force you to chase them around the screen to find out what they’re about. According to Google’s Search Keyword Tool, 12,000 mobile users search for “Christian Louboutin” each month. While that may not seem like a huge amount of people compared to the 1.8 million web users who search for the brand, that’s still 12,000 people who wouldn’t be able to find retailer information or addresses, style information or anything else on the official Louboutin website, because it’s not designed in a way that would allow mobile visitors to see anything. Search spiders? They’re seeing the same nothingness.

Is it any wonder visitors abandon official sites in favor of counterfeiters who offer a wide array of shoes, ready to purchase with a click of the mouse?

If this all sounds familiar, it’s because it is. We looked at similar issues plaguing Louis Vuitton’s search results, but it appears Louboutin is following a similar, expensive path which will end with no better results. You see, in addition to the video of fake Louboutins being run over by a bulldozer, the site lists recent legal victories. While shutting down the warehouses that manufacture the fake shoes is a smart move, listing websites selling fakes is probably not the best idea.

In what has to be a bit of unintended irony, the simple HTML references to the sites mean that there’s a better chance of Google and other search engines indexing the content of those sites before they “see” anything on Louboutin’s official site.

Louboutin is obviously in the shoe business, not the internet business, so we don’t hold it against him that there’s been a bit of a learning curve. We wish the company the best in protecting their brand against counterfeiters, but if they spent half the amount dedicated to legal costs to building a modern, accessible site the battle might take a fraction of the effort to win.

Otherwise, it turns into an endless game of whack-a-mole (with much prettier moles, of course) where one fake site goes down, and another pops up weeks later.

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.