Taco bell has released a new Waffle Taco breakfast menu item and, before you gag, think of this. It fits Taco Bell’s quirky bill, matching nicely alongside counterparts such as the Doritos Loco Taco and commercials that play up the Live Mas theme.

The hurdle for Taco Bell, however, will not be menu items. In fact, when considering the availability of breakfast burritos at competitive chains, who in the market has more permission then Taco Bell to sell anything wrapped in a burrito?

The hurdle for Taco Bell is breakfast itself, a day part Taco Bell may not have permission to play.

Breakfast is a market that is increasingly getting more and more players because it offers an additional profit center. Many big names, most recently Wendy’s, have tried their hand at breakfast only to find entry difficult because their brand doesn’t speak breakfast.

Watch the fast food market for a matter of weeks and there will be new items coming and going. McDonald’s does this best with its McRib and Shamrock Shake. New items are a nice way to get a bump in sales but leave them on the menu too long and sales drop once the sense of new wears off. This is the reason McDonald’s pulls its special menu items before consumers have a chance to get tired of them.

Taco Bell’s Waffle Taco is interesting enough for it to create that bump. But Taco Bell should only consider it a way to buy time. In the meantime, it should create messaging that builds its breakfast brand so that, when the Waffle Taco buzz drops off, there is a loyal Taco Bell breakfast consumer remaining.

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.

Imagine your surprise the first time you pull up to a fast food restaurant and find calories listed with each item.

That happened to me at Chick-fil-a recently, prompting the question: Do calories matter?

Yes, they do.

I planned to order a spicy chicken sandwich meal – 920 calories – but left with an eight-count nugget meal, which came in at only 700 calories. I switched my order to save 220 calories.

Slapping calorie counts on menus was not the decision of the fast food chains. The initiative is part of the national health care bill that requires restaurants with 20 or more locations include calorie counts on their menus. McDonald’s was the first to comply in November.

We shall see if this honest approach creates positive change for the business of fast food restaurants. I’m not optimistic.

Consider Hardee’s Monster Thickburger: The burger alone contains 1,300 calories. Add a soda and fries, and the meal soars to 2,030 calories, putting a new spin on term indulgent.

My prediction: Publishing calories won’t be good for the fast-food business.

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.

Every company that cares about its brand should work hard to separate its corporate identity from the political and personal views of those who work there. This is good advice for both privately owned and publicly traded corporations.

Chick-fil-A was in the news recently after its president, Dan Cathy, made public his position toward gay marriage. Regardless of persuasion, preference and possible religious views, these actions tarnished the Chick-fil-A brand. Cathy’s statements introduced elements that are contradictory to the brand identity that Chick-fil-A’s advertising, menu and workers have worked hard to establish.

Until last week, the mention of Chick-fil-A conjured up humorous images of cows that could not spell. What also came to mind were unfailingly pleasant employees as well as some of the nicest and cleanest fast-food locations – ones that never made you feel soiled for eating there.

Now what comes to mind is a divisive social issue.

Chick-fil-A’s marketing and continued brand focus over the years was not inexpensive. Judging by the company’s growth, that money was not wasted. Now, by making gay rights a reason to prefer or not prefer Chick-fil-A over other fast-food restaurants, the company has undermined the work it put into that successful brand.

While we live in a country that allows free speech, when it comes to divisive issues, it is smarter to say nothing at all. Stealing market share is all about understanding objections and identifying triggers that will make customers switch. Reduce objections whenever possible, never introduce new ones.

Free speech is an important right and it is certainly Cathy’s privilege to comment about his personal beliefs as much as he wishes. But as result of his outspokenness, Chick-fil-A must redouble efforts to refocus its brand because this chain is not only about chicken sandwiches and silly cows anymore.

Taco Bell has introduced a new Cantina Bell menu with recipes by celebrity chef Lorena Garcia. While the move might be a fresh offering for patrons, it is a schizophrenic turn for the brand. I say that because a brand offering a fresh, gourmet cantina lineup while selling Doritos Locos Tacos seems at odds with itself. 

Doritos Locos Tacos aside, the Taco Bell brand seems conflicted. The cantina menu is designed to grab business from competitors, but I have yet to be asked by someone working at Chipotle if I would like a squirt of “Cheez Whiz ” on my burrito.

The reason the Doritos Locos tacos were the most successful fast-food menu item ever launched was because it matched perfectly with Taco Bell’s brand.  A taco shell made from Doritos is very much on strategy for the Cheez Whiz-loving, fourth-meal-eating, happy-you’re-open-until-3 a.m. demographic.

Now, Taco Bell is attempting to be all things to all customers and, in the process, will lose share in its current market. A transition towards cantina may be part of Taco Bell’s plan, but if so, it should be done deliberately and must involve the scrapping of many current menu items.

It appears that Taco Bell assumes places like Chipotle are successful simply because it sells cantina-style food. Not true. Chipotle’s success is largely due to a brand that is consistent with purpose, products and its customer base.

In the same breath that I am advising against Taco Bell’s recent move, I would just as quickly advise against Chipotle incorporating anything Doritos related into its lineup.  The two don’t mesh. Nor does it look like it will.

Taco Bell would do well to focus on why its Doritos Locos Tacos are such a hit.  In fact, the company should not try to narrow the gap with its cantina competitors, but widen it.

There is a market for Taco Bell, but it will never own that market until someone there realizes that the brand of Taco Bell is not even about Mexican food. Until that realization strikes, Taco Bell will see its strong Doritos Locos Tacos momentum challenged by future product failures.

In the world of copycats, be an original. The saying could not be more valuable when it comes to brands. Sharing look, feel and identity too closely with competition means brand value is relegated to least common denominator.

In the years I have lived in Greensboro, there have always been a few places to get ice cream. There were Baskin Robbins, Carvel, Ben & Jerry’s and, for something a bit different, there were two TCBYs. I say “were” because in rolled Coldstone (with four to five locations within city limits) and ice cream soon snuffed out the TCBY’s frozen yogurt business, which shortly thereafter closed both locations.

There is certainly something to be said for the role heavy competition had on the closings. Greensboro seemed, at the time, to be right at the breaking point in terms of the ice cream to human ratio. But, alas, here we are, a couple of years after the TCBY closings with all of the original ice-cream shops still in business, and somehow Greensboro is now sustaining even more frozen treat locations resulting from the current FroYo craze that is second in “hip” only to cupcake shops. With FroYo chains opening at what seems to be a one-every-six months basis, there really is no telling just how much frozen treats Greensboroeons can consume.

While competition might have appeared heavy, the simple fact is that TCBY’s fall was due to a shortage of a meaningful brand, not a shortage of demand. TCBY was different but differentiation was only based on the value of its product. That’s not enough, especially when the reasons for choosing the TCBY brand were the same as choosing the rest.

A differentiator of product value can only go so far and is vulnerable when something new, like Coldstone’s mixing in of toppings, becomes the more exciting form of “different.”

TCBY, however, has noticed a rebound of a FroYo craze. (FroYo is hip lingo for frozen yogurt.) Yet, in trying to reclaim relevancy in that market, it has chosen to copy the “hip” tone and feel of the competition instead of staking out its own identity.

If you take a look at TCBY’s redesigned stores, a sort of rebrand, you would confuse the layout, color palette, design, and messaging with the FroYo location that I can assume exists right near you. TCBY needs to be careful at how similar it appears to these new chains that are popping up. The more it mimics, the more vanilla it becomes. In an attempt to become like the rest, TCBY blands itself so much it just becomes more noise in the already noisy FroYo market.

Sheetz seems to be doing a lot of things really well these days.

It boasts the cheapest gas (which is why I like them — as well as droves of others), has the cleanest stations, and is user friendly and visually striking. No one looks like Sheetz, which marks the first step in developing preference.

So with the Sheetz brand looking as strong as it is, why would it throw proverbial wrench into its success by advertising: “Just because we don’t look like a restaurant doesn’t mean we’re not one”?

Really? Just to be clear, Sheetz is a gas station with a great convenience center where you can get a quick and, let’s be honest, mediocre fast food sandwich. The food at Sheetz represents an excellent option for a cheap meal while on the road. But, it is definitely not a restaurant and taking on the major QSRs such as McDonald’s and Wendy’s is not a smart strategy.

Let’s play reality here. Just how foolish does this sound: “Okay guys, it’s gonna be Arby’s, Taco Bell or Sheetz.”

Does this scenario sound as stupid to you as it does me?

To me, this is messaging inanity because it simply isn’t believable. Ultimately, Sheetz is missing a perfect opportunity to take complete control in its respective market. Instead, it is wasting time and money by attempting to steal market share from restaurant chains where it doesn’t play on an equal field. Louis Sheetz, the company’s EVP of sales and marketing and member of the family that founded it, says that the lines between category definitions are blurred.

Exactly. That’s why the opportunity is missed because this marketing angle continues to blur the category lines without giving target audiences a true definition of what Sheetz is. If audiences don’t know where to place the brand or, even worse, don’t believe where the brand itself is saying it needs to be placed, then the brand becomes damaged.

Sheetz desperately needs to rethink this soon. It is already holding onto such a vital piece of the market that includes a brand in 7-Eleven that has lost its luster, but can now steal some of Sheetz’s share because Sheetz just opened the door. Clearly, Sheetz is willing to think outside of the box, but it must rethink its marketing approach and bring clarity to its position if it wishes to take that giant leap forward.

Well, it looks like someone else gets it. And I don’t mean an advertiser who thinks it has found the Holy Grail to stealing market share.

The advertiser is Burger King, which is responding to its lost market share (dropping to No. 3 behind Wendy’s) with an aggressive advertising campaign that features celebrities and new menus that basically copy market leader McDonald’s.

The spots feature celebrities such as soccer star David Beckham, Jay Leno, Salma Hayek and others featuring the virtues of BK’s new menu items like salads, smoothies and chicken snack wraps.

But as Janney Capital Markets analyst Mark Kalinowski told the Miami Herald, “In the long run, Burger King would be well-served to not try to be a McDonald’s clone. You can’t out McDonald’s McDonald’s.”

Preaching to the choir, sir.

We’ve been saying this for years. To steal market share, you must be different and better than your competition. In fact, if you copy the market leader, the market leader will win because it is the default choice when all things are equal.

No wonder, then, that McDonald’s is actually increasing its market share, with sales increasing 26% over the last five years. When all those chasing the fast-food giant are simply aping it, McDonald’s wins.

BK is unveiling this campaign, one of its largest in recent years, in order to attract investors as 29% of the chain will go public soon. But investors should be wary. Changing the menu and offering up a huge media spend without a resonant message is a waste of time and money.

Burger King needs desperately to decide what it wants to be. Its menu should reflect that and so should its messaging. It should be focused as well. For example, one of the reasons why Wendy’s has overtaken BK is because Wendy’s, as a brand, is focused on hamburgers. When you think of Wendy’s, you think of big, beefy hamburgers.

If BK is going to present itself as a mini-McDonald’s, then that’s what it will be. A mini.

With sales of $8.5 billion in 2011, Wendy’s just the claimed number 2 spot, moving ahead of Burger King but was well short of McDonald’s $34.2 billion. This second place battle of the pygmies needs to find greater meaning in the market if either ever wants a crack at McDonalds.

My worry for Wendy’s is that its rise will prompt it to confuse activity with accomplishment. Yes, from a marketing perspective, Wendy’s is doing things, but its rise has been relative to Burger King’s inconsistent execution of any strategy.

Most of our battles at Stealing Share when rebranding companies is changing the internal mindset of those companies. Positive news, like Wendy’s received, provides a false sense of security. Fortune favors the bold and, if my past experience has taught me anything, it is that a third place Wendy’s would be strategically more bold than a second place Wendy’s.

Strategically, Wendy’s should set its sights on the white whale: McDonald’s. At the moment, however, it seems to be doing the same as Burger King by marketing product instead of brand. Copy in a recent Wendy’s ads goes: “No matter who you are, Wendy’s will make a Dave’s Hot and Juicy Cheeseburger fresh just for you, so its special, just like you.” Give me a moment while I my eyes stop rolling. Beyond its campy verbiage, it provides no switching trigger for the customer. Does anyone believe they would be refused service when they go to a fast food restaurant? Or that a competitor will not make hamburgers?

McDonald’s has been successful due to its message clarity, consistency and firm brand meaning of “fun.” In fact, that brand promise is represented as an experience rather then product.

Wendy’s is certainly in a good position. Number two is nothing to scoff at. But it will take focus to clear the gap with McDonalds and being able to spot the pivotal brand difference between its brand  and the Mickey-Dee one.