What does a rise in Macy’s profits of 3.8 percent in the last quarter mean to other retailers? It means this is no time to be asleep at the wheel.

JC Penney and Kohl’s are being mentioned as losers in most of the financial news stories. Can’t argue with that.

But what about Sears, Stein Mart, Dillard’s, Belk, Target, Walmart and even Kmart?

If you want to grow business as a retail store, you need to do it at the expense of your competition. I think we all agree with that. But where is the sense of urgency and the absolute need for change in this category? I don’t see it anywhere.

The analysts assert that advancements in delivering online orders are mostly responsible for the good results for Macy’s. To my thinking, this is a thin and fleeting advantage.

As an expert in increasing market share, I can tell you straight out — there is room to take a lot of share in this category. All you need to do is get out of your own way and be willing to reinvent your importance to the shopping market. We know how to do this and yet no one from the category has called us to ask us how. Whoever calls first will win.

In such a ho-hum market as fast food, I am constantly amazed at the ridiculousness of its participants. Burger King, the king of switching out new menu items, recently announced it is going to roll out a new limited-time sandwich called the BK Rib Sandwich this summer.

Uh. Ever hear of the McRib?

What is so bizarre is that Burger King believes it can out-innovate the fast food market. Its executives have flat-out said it. But what they call innovation, I call copying.

Let’s look at a couple of other innovative offerings for its 2013 menu: Sweet potato fries and a pulled pork sandwich – both of which can be found at Carl’s Jr. Arby’s have had sweet potato fries in the past. Subway and Hardee’s both have pulled pork sandwiches.

To compete in the fiercely competitive fast food segment, it takes more than trying to out-menu your competition. People don’t eat the McRib sandwich only because they like it. They eat it because it comes from McDonalds and McDonalds has been smart about practically building a mythology around it.

Burger King is currently number three in the fast food market, trailing McDonalds and Wendy’s. To overcome them, BK must stop copying the market leaders and be different and better. Not just in food, but in the way it looks, feels, sounds and acts. Time to get with it.

Ever wonder why brand is important to corporate growth? Check out Jennifer Barron’s “5 Reasons To Bring Brand Into the Boardroom,” in Marketing Daily.

Barron contends that brand is a company’s most valuable asset and a driver of customer purchase. She says brand requires investment and must be aligned with everything the company does.

Most importantly, Barron says brand should not be confused with marketing.

Insightful reasons.

I’d like to add one more: Brand is the best way to steal market share.

Some foolishly believe that discount prices or superior products steal share. Yet prices and products often yield short-term gains and may not be important to consumers.

For example, the iPhone may not be the best mobile phone on the market, but it leads the market because of the Apple brand.

The best way to offer true choice to consumers is to offer a different brand. When everything is equal, as it is in most industries, consumers stay with familiar products.

They will switch only when they see something that is different, a true choice. That’s where brand comes in. If your brand is different and better than the competition’s, you will steal share.

Someone told Abercrombie & Fitch CEO Mike Jeffries that brand works best when you stick a stake in the ground and clearly identify potential customers.

But Jeffries misunderstood. This perennially hip retailer garnered a fresh round of  negative publicity this week when a book about retail operations, called “The New Rules of Retail” revealed Abercrombie & Fitch were no longer selling any women’s clothes above large or pants larger than size 10. That unearthed a 2006 Salon article in which the tone-deaf CEO said that he doesn’t want large women wearing his clothes.

“In every school there are the cool and popular kids, and then there are the not-so-cool kids,” Jeffries told the online magazine. “Candidly, we go after the cool kids. We go after the attractive all-American kid with a great attitude and a lot of friends. A lot of people don’t belong [in our clothes], and they can’t belong. Are we exclusionary? Absolutely.”

According to Forbes, Abercrombie & Fitch has remained silent in the wake of this latest controversy, refusing to distance the company from those statements.

Big mistake.

Jeffries should follow Nike’s lead.  Nike’s “Just Do It” brand tells customers that it’s for winners. That’s a select group, but one that any person with determination can join. Besides, everyone wants to be a winner.

That’s the power of the Nike brand.

By being so specific about the weight of customers,  rather than their  attitude, Jeffries and by extension, Abercrombie & Fitch, sound hateful and shallow.

For the record, I’ll take a plus-sized Marilyn Monroe any day over an emaciated hipster.

I remember when Oreck was the premium player in the vacuum cleaner business. The company even had its own retail stores. But Oreck never developed a sticky brand.

Now, it has filed for Chapter 11 protection and is on a familiar spiral into the world of forgotten and irrelevant brands.

Oreck marketed its vacuums as being lightweight and the favorite of hotel professionals. Both ideas, however, are from a distant era when many thought brand was built around a single unique feature and an endorsement.

The unique feature has moved on. Weight no longer matters. Bagless machines with cyclonic action are hot right now.  Some manufacturers – Dyson, for instance – recognize that even mundane vacuum cleaner purchases carry a personal brand value both in terms of its personality and design. Design is worth paying for and is something customers will covet.

I remember Oreck well. To bad it never asked me to care.

This week brought a wonderful change in weather. The winter chill slipped away and gave way to warmth of spring. This prompted a hankering for just one thing: frozen yogurt. Finding some wasn’t hard. Frozen yogurt is everywhere.

Chains like Menchie’s and Red Mango pepper our shopping centers, where once TCBY and Columbo were our only options.

Having a wealth of frozen yogurt options is convenient, but is there a difference between the chains?

Actually, no.

Here’s Menchie’s promise: “Guests will be able to go to Menchie’s anywhere in the world and enjoy exactly the same experience every time: quality service, a quality product, a happy environment, a warm and friendly design, and cleanliness.”

Take a look at the mission of Taste: “[an] energetic and friendly environment, where you can experiment with your yogurt and share a unique experience with family and friends.”

Now check out Sweet Frog: “Our goal is to create the best frozen yogurt experience you’ve ever had! You create your own combination of delicious soft-serve frozen yogurt, then top it off with any toppings you choose!”

These banal – and interchangeable – mission statements go on and on.

A rapidly expanding category such as frozen yogurt is rich territory for a company that wants to be different, better and unique. Yet the lazy frozen yogurt market simply caters to location, convenience, cleanliness and superior ingredients — what we in the branding world consider simple table stakes.

The ability to steal frozen yogurt market share will come to the franchise that figures out why its product is truly superior to all the rest.

Barnes & Noble Chairman Leonard Riggio is making a bid to separate the company’s retail and online businesses.

Question is, how will this effect the Barnes & Noble brand?

Investors are clearly heartened by the announcement. Stock in the company jumped 17 percent simply on rumors of the move. Investors seem to see Barnes & Noble’s split personality – half retail bookseller, half online retailer – as a negative.

They may be right business-wise, but a division like this could hurt the brand.

Ostensibly, the split would allow greater focus on each segment of the company. But it could also feed the perception that this is a bi-polar business.

A lot depends on the moniker. If the Barnes & Noble name stays with both ends, the company will continue to be seen as one by the public. Any inconstancies in how the two businesses are run have the potential to hurt the entire company.

Barnes & Noble should proceed with caution. If the split takes place it’s critical that the two ends of the business adhere stringently to brand standards. Every detail matters when creating brand preference.

Slip up and Amazon is the winner.

Amazon released its Kindle Fire HD last November and this week it slashed the price by $30. That’s a bad sign. Yet Kindle Business President Dave Limp cheerily explained that cost efficiencies in manufacturing were simply being passed along to Amazon customers.

Limp’s excuse sounds nice, but this is really about brand preference.

The Kindle Fire HD was already one of the most inexpensive eReaders on the market. This price reduction is a sign of poor sales.

Kindle’s main competition, of course, is the pricier Apple iPad. It’s odd that even a $100 difference between the iPad and the Fire was not a large enough price incentive to trigger Kindle sales.

Clearly, Kindle is thinking that $130 will drive customers to the cheaper alternative.

The Kindle brand is relatively successful but the dramatic price cut is a troubling sign of problems. Customers will almost always pay more for brands with meaning.

Amazon’s Kindle Fire is experiencing difficulties that probably have nothing at all to do with cost.

When some companies hit a downturn, those in charge instinctively begin to reinvent themselves

Big mistake.

Too often, companies are treating the symptom and not the cause. Usually, a lack of brand focus is the problem. An example of sharp brand focus is Volvo.

When you think car safety, you think Volvo. Sure, safety isn’t the trigger for everyone shopping for an auto. But for the segment of the market that cares most about safety, Volvo is its brand. The company seizes every opportunity to remind them of it.

When you check out this video, you know it can only be about Volvo.

Consistency of message is how brands become real. Companies that understand that find the emotional undercurrent that is unclaimed in the market and ring that bell as loud as possible.

Brands doing this become unmistakable, unforgettable and coveted.

Companies that find themselves in need of frequent change should look to the example of Volvo.

Talk about a public relations disaster. The cruise industry has been awash in hideous publicity for more than a year. And the ugly news just keeps coming.

It’s been just 13 months since The Costa Concordia – operated by Costa Cruises, a subsidiary of Carnival – ran into a rock off the coast of Italy. The ship is still resting on its side and is a powerful reminder of an accident that killed at least 30 people.

Then, in February 2012, the Costa Allegra – another Costa Cruise ship – had to be towed to shore after a fire in its engine room left that ship marooned off the coast of India.

Now this: The Carnival Triumph was stranded at sea last week after a fire in its engine room left that cruise ship without power. In interviews after they reached shore in Mobile, AL, disgusted passengers described conditions that made it sound like they had been marooned in a floating cesspool.

Not good.

The cruise industry is quickly becoming a punch line. The only way to fight that awful perception will be through brand. The cruise line that tackles the bad publicity head-on will be the one that takes the leadership position in the industry.

Cruises are all about fun. When passengers endure anguish, anxiety, discomfort and even death at sea, the image of cruising is sunk.

Ironically, Carnival unveiled a television ad in December that claimed its ships were, “Fun for all. All for Fun.” Sadly, there are thousands of passengers from the Triumph that would take issue with that happy claim.

All of the players in the category should re-think their brands and ask themselves a few questions. They should ask why passengers would choose them over other lines and who do passengers think they are when taking a cruise? What do passengers want from a cruise: Is it only about fun or is there some other experience that they seek?

It’s rare that public perception must be addressed through brand, but that is the case with the cruise industry.

Some experts predict that the cruise industry’s problems will fade away with time. Maybe so. But what happens if there is another incident?