That's a tad odd, what with it being March and the fact that I'm usually accused of killing Jesus rather than celebrating his birth. But for the past week I've turned the holiday over in my head. Not the celebratory part of it or traditions and chestnuts on the open fires. The full bearded craftsman I'm thinking about isn't the one Jim Caveziel portrayed in theatres this year.

I'm thinking about Santa Claus.

According to most sources, the current incarnation of Santa Claus descended from the Christian Bishop St. Nicholas who was brought to the New World by Columbus in 1492 and then by the Dutch in the 16th Century. Over the centuries, St. Nick evolved from a kindly religious Samaritan into an elfin icon, complete with pipe and round belly that laughed when he shook, like a bowlful of jelly. His image continued to change, as dozens upon thousands of artists tackled their own interpretations of the international do-gooder that left fruit, nuts and gifts for children as he helped out those less fortunate.

But it wasn't until the nineteenth and twentieth centuries that the visual representation of Santa we know today began to establish itself. In the late 1800s, political cartoonist Thomas Nast ran a series of drawings representing St. Nick based on descriptions from the classic poem, "A Visit from St. Nicholas" in Harper's Weekly. These drawings established a rotund Santa with flowing beard, fur garments, and clay pipe. But in the 1930s, Haddon Sundblom and the Coca- Cola Corporation sealed Santa's fate with his bright red uniform and hat, full white beard and thick black belt and boots. They gave the world a vivid new portrayal of a religious icon established centuries earlier that has cemented into global culture, redefining the way we see Santa Claus not only in terms of the holidays, but in various mediums of entertainment. The Santa Clause, Miracle on 34th Street, Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer and hell, even "Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer." Malls across America, frozen corners across the world in front of a small kettle and bell - and of course, on the small cylinder of Coca-Cola year after year. There is no doubt as to what Santa Claus stands for. No question as to who he is and what he represents to us.

Now I'm going to do something a bit risky here. I'm going to say something that may or may not work - in fact, I'm probably going to have writers the world ever saying 'Kleid, you've got to stop smoking the crackcocaine!'...but what is the purpose of a public forum like this one if not for grand, risky statements that may or may not get you run out of cybertown on a cyberrail?

My hypothesis is as such: What Haddon Sundblom and Coke did wasn't just design Santa. They branded him.

What is branding? A school of advertising that says, "If the consumer has heard of us, we've done our job." The specific identification of an entity, product or service by which said entity, product or service becomes known, used, trusted and quoted by the consumer. A name, term, sign, symbol, design, or some combination of these, which identifies the product as the marketer's and differentiates it from competitor's offerings.

Here's my question: Is there a place for branding in writing? Can a person be branded? How about a character in a story?

Let's look at a different full bearded craftsman who imparts gifts to children worldwide. Under the umbrella of a corporation, a man named Lucas created a universe stamped with a globally recognized brand name: Star Wars.

When I was a kid, my brother and I received Underoos, which for those who don't know are underclothes with the uniforms of licensed characters printed on them. The "uniform" I got was the Luke Skywalker X-Wing Pilot ensemble. That was fine and dandy for me, because since I had been six or seven I was dying to be Luke Skywalker. Luke Skywalker was the All-American hero. The starry eyed leading man who fucked up the Death Star on a street drag space race against the baddest villain in fifteen galaxies. To me and millions of kids the world over, Luke Skywalker was the ideal. Not to my brother, though. He was a Han Solo man, through and through. Han Solo was badass. Han Solo had the cool ship, the wise-guy attitude and could take care of himself in a bar brawl. Han Solo was the bad boy women secretly lusted after while walking hand in hand with Luke Skywalker.

Two different leading men - two different brands: The good guy and the bad ass. Coke and Pepsi. Each a potential entity, product or service that became known, used, trusted and quoted by the consumer. Surrounding these brands are satellite brands. Some thrive; some fail. A specific character is given twenty minutes of screen time throughout the trilogy, but something about his brand - perhaps his packaging, perhaps his message - strikes a chord in the consumer and suddenly he's the most popular brand in the universe. Another, a sidekick to the leading characters, is nothing the brand that flies the ship and howls. He's not the Real Thing, nor is he the Choice of the New Generation. Perhaps he's simply the Uncola; lusted after by those who look for something different in their soft drinks needs. And that's fine. Because that's a brand, too.

An entire universe of varying characters. An entire universe of individual brands.

Defining a character, to me, is like branding a product or company. Individuals within the framework of a story do their part to become known, used, trusted or quoted by the consumer to the best of their ability. Discovering the essence of their brand, distilling characters to their strengths, weaknesses, faults, tics, triumphs and emotions is vital to the creation of a lasting, inspiring story and key for a successful writer.

On page 94 of Michael Chabon's The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay, one of the leads, Sam Clay says the following in regards to the creation of his character, The Escapist, to collaborator Josef Kavalier:

"... no matter what we come up with and how we dress him, some other character with the same shtick, with the same style of boots and the same little doodad on his chest, is already out there, or is coming out tomorrow, or is going to be knocked off from our guy inside a week and a half... 'how?' is not the question. 'What?' is not the question. The question is 'Why?'"

Why does your character do the things your character does? What drives him, pushes him and motivates him? What wakes her from the bosom of sleep at three a.m. to question personal existence and something damn well better wake her from the bosom of sleep at three a.m. to question personal existence because, if not, there is no 'why' and fuck you, I'm off to read Catcher in the Rye.

I'm suggesting that branding a character helps you understand that character. Re-read Chabon's excerpt and see if you agree whether or not Sam Clay has a brand. Whether he has a 'why' - a mission statement and a name, term, sign, symbol, design, or combination of these that identifies him and differentiates him from other characters surrounding him. Luke Skywalker is the eager hero, desperate to come of age. Darth Vader is the tragic villain, searching for redemption through his son. Santa Claus is a kindly Samaritan who believes in the best of humanity.

What is your character's mission statement? Is it "with great power comes great responsibility"? How about "your mind is a weapon", "make the muscle to meet the desire" or "truth, justice and the American way"? Perhaps it's simply "I hate Mondays." I don't know. But you should.

Every character, no matter how small or bit, is an individual brand. Even if you have no plans for that character beyond the story you're trying to tell, that character must be branded with emotions and motivations that makes the reader CARE. Otherwise said reader will tell your character to fuck off and go look for ducks with Holden Caulfield.

Novels and prose have it tougher when it comes to branding characters. At least film and comics employ visuals to help establish the character brand - everyone knows the red, yellow and blue "Superman" colors, right? But what do you do when all you have are words? How does one create a viable branded character without a visual?

Let's take this to the top of the world:

"Yoni Aviv sat atop Masada, cradled his rifle and thought about the designated hitter rule. Seemed rather inefficient, to the twenty-three year old chayal. Why fatten an already hefty batting lineup of nine men with a slugger who warms a bench while his comrades defend against pop flies, line drives and stolen bases? The DH rule would never pass muster if Israelis had invented baseball. A team of nine soldiers, working together as a seamless machine, could scale a fortress mountain like Masada in fifteen minutes - imagine their success with a simple thing like a baseball game. Adding a tenth, unnecessary man would only hamper them, slow down the team. But Yoni Aviv was like that - efficient and streamlined in all things. The way he walked patrol, the way he packed his backpack and even the way he surveyed Jordanian airspace during his shift - scanning the skies from left to right, up and down. Methodical and dedicated, when the young soldier from the Golan hills set his mind to a task he made sure the task was completed to perfection. Almost to the point of fanaticism. And so he was with baseball. He loved the game, the skill and the sounds, the history and stories. Once, on a trip to the States, Yoni caught a double header at Fenway and was a diehard Red Sox fan ever since. Sitting here now, atop a lonely mountain in the middle of the night, guarding a national landmark from possible foreign threats, there wasn't anything Yoni Aviv wanted more than to play a game of baseball. He'd be willing to do anything to play, even for one inning."

The above blurb begins my initial branding of Yoni Aviv, efficient Israeli soldier with a fierce love of baseball. It starts to mold his character, creating a specific brand that readers can connect with... and if you encountered it within the context of a larger novel, you'd brand Yoni in your mind as a specific type of character, right?

What if I added the following sentence after the above blurb:

"He'd even be willing to kill."

Gives efficient, fanatical Yoni a whole new take, doesn't it? Redefines the brand a bit.

Why are the Harry Potter novels wildly successful while thousands of fantasy books wallow in obscurity? Is it because each and every character in J.K. Rowlings' sprawling universe is a brand unto themselves? The reader invests a little something into each unique character no matter if they're a hero, villain or supporting elf. When the first Potter film was released, fans the world over said the same thing: "that's exactly the way I pictured so and so would be." Harry Potter always wears glasses, has a scar and saves the day. Jack Ryan is always knee deep in technical espionage. James Bond always gets the babe. Santa Claus always saves Christmas.

Characterization is branding. Branding is characterization. For every Tom, Dick or Harry in a work of literature there are specific sets of emotions, motivations and arcs. "Vito Corleone" is a brand. "Julius Caesar" is a brand. "Jimmy Olsen" is a brand. Genre is easy - everyone wants to tell a cowboy story. Everyone wants to write a mob drama. The challenge - the fucking KEY- is taking the genre you choose to work in, whether superhero, sci-fi, horror, romance or porn and making it your own. Making it uniquely YOUR OWN. And the best tool to help make your story uniquely your own is your character.

Is your character your brand? If the consumer has heard of your character, have you done your job? If the consumer IDENTIFIES with your character, have you done your job?

I've been known to be wrong before but my hypothesis is yes, your character is a brand. Even if your character is you.

I'll leave you to think about that last bit.

-----------------------------

BIG POND is a collective column that begins with ideas and continues with opinions. Each column focuses in on my musings about writing for the comic book, film and television industry and then gives way to opinions on the week's topic by a diverse group of writers.

This week, we're joined in the pond by two writers that touch upon the brand/marketing world in their day to day. Larry Young oversees a publishing empire on the West Coast while and Maureen McTigue has overseen aspects of several on the East Coast. They took time out of their busy day to respond to my thoughts on branding and characters and the results are below.

Their thoughts on this week's topic:

Larry: ""What we've got here is a failure to communicate."

I'm pretty sure the Captain in Cool Hand Luke wasn't talking about branding, although he may as well have been. And I'm not sure Neil is talking so much about branding as he is lumping the four-sided gemstone that is positioning-branding-messaging-advertising into one big-ass bucket. But in-between my run on the beach and my proofreading of Surviving Grady and my scanning of the art for Seal Team Seven and my reading of Joe Casey's second draft of the Full Moon Fever screenplay, I figure I can put down my glass of Ardbeg long enough to talk a little about each bit.

"There seems to be a lot of talk in FunnybookLand lately about 'persona' and 'branding' and 'the marketplace' and with the various sites looking at sales figures and whatnot, I have to say it's all crap. Yes, there's a level of media-savvy that the audience for entertainment has now that wasn't present when I was a kid -- my brother-in-law the adventure writer waits, for example, to see if he's going to see a major movie based on the overnight grosses for opening day as printed in the paper. If a movie 'underperforms,' he'll just wait to catch it on HBO or to rent the DVD, and that's a different relationship to mass-market entertainment that he has than I had at his age. The experience of watching the film will be there for him, no matter what. When I was his age, I didn't care about the opening weekend performance of Logan's Run; I'd just heard there were flame guns and naked chicks and robots and explosions and that was enough for me to plunk down for a ticket. Now, the B-I-L calculates his down-time based on the overnights. That's a commitment to keeping current on the pop culture that was the purview of studio heads half my life ago, and now, apparently, is watercooler talk at Outside Magazine.

"So what I'm saying is that a bunch of folks who've been raised on media watchwords may not be using them in the manner God intended, is all.

"So, where should we start? I think we can all agree that 'branding' is cart-before-the-horse, because if you have an identifiable brand before you know the position you want, your brand is meat on Styrofoam bones, and will never be stronger than 'weak.' Starting at 'advertising' is reading the last page of a mystery novel first, since strong advertising is just a creative application of your message, and 'messaging' flows mostly from the brand. Dang, this is a pretty heavy topic, yeah?

"But 'branding' is the most misunderstood concept in marketing, I can tell you that.

"Branding is an integration... a concatenation of parts and effects and company-held beliefs. But whatever you throw in: advertising, guerilla marketing, customer interaction, community fostering, newsletters, direct mail, slash-to-the-bone-cut-out-the-middleman sales, customer service, discounts, what-have-you... it's all about one thing: presenting a unified message.

"And you can't present a unified message unless your positioning is solid.

"Before I get into it, let me show you a little graph that will visually illuminate what I'm talking about.

"

"This chart shows the daily reach of my pal Warren Ellis' two sites, going six months back. See how diepunyhumans.com graphs all over the place? That's because it's completely dependent on Warren's mastery of the Internet and control of data to the message boards. It's what you call 'a push,' in that your average user doesn't hit diepunyhumans.com unless pushed there by a message from Warren or one of his flying monkeys. It's not intuitive to click over to diepunyhumans if you're a fan of W's work. So you get severe peaks and valleys, dependent on how well his message was delivered that day.

"But look at warrenellis.com.

"Even in the days before he swapped over, you can tell folks were checking it out on their own, figuring that 'warrenellis.com' was the URL of choice. They weren't being driven there, and yet they showed up anyhow. And because Warren is nothing if not savvy, he realized himself (and it looks like around the first of the year) that it'd be a lot less wear-and-tear on him if he let the kids just check into the site that bears his name. And you can see, graphically, that there's a lot more consistency of message.

"That there is 'positioning' in action.

"Positioning isn't so much a 'what-you-have' as it is a 'what-you-want-to-say.' Sure, you start with something, like Kleid says: a character, a person, a story, a book, a brand. But it's not what you do with that so much as how you present your "something" to the mind of a prospective customer or end-user or audience member. In W's case, 'Warren Ellis' isn't so much a 'brand' as it is a 'position.' Means something to him and to the audience, and it's a firm hand on the rudder that's needed to keep the meaning on course.

"Jedi Mind Tricks, man.

"Let's peek behind the curtain at my own company, yeah? What the hell does AiT/Planet Lar mean, anyway? That's gotta be the worst name for a publishing house, ever, right?

"Well, yes and no.

"On the one hand, it looks like a jumble of vowels and consonants. On the other, though, it means its own thing. The unrivaled beauty of an 'empty vessel' name like this is that it can come to represent virtually any thing, any product or service. Something so devoid of meaning on its own that it can only mean what you deem it to be so with the meaning you give it. So the impact of the uppercase A lower case I uppercase T slash capital P lowercase LANET uppercase L lower case AR can only mean one thing: and that's my company. And my company means what we make it mean. And that's positioning.

"So, advertise how you will. Campaigns come and go and we all have our favorites. Messaging is important, but if you want to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony, you still have to make sure that your flavored water is distinct from all those other flavored waters, yeah?

"But if you want a successful brand, you need to determine what your brand stands for, first. And that's positioning For my company, 'Making Comics Better' isn't just a marketing tagline: it's the hill we're gonna die on.

"And that's positioning."

Maureen:"Branding is an interesting concept. The idea comes from making sure others know that something is your own, as in branding cattle or even writing your name on your own stuff.

"Now, what Neil's talking about is how when you create a character or a story, you are branding it by putting pieces of it together to make it a whole, and that whole is what people respond to. Larry side-steps branding specifically, by looking at marketing generally. Now, there are very few people who can market like Larry, so pay attention when he talks. But as for branding, I'm not sure where any of this fits.

"Sure, you can create advertising, create a buzz around something, 'announce, it and they will come,' a whole atmosphere, but what's the brand? People do buy brands, but many of those brands--Coca-Cola, Superman, Nike--have grown and developed over decades. 'Law & Order' has become a brand, but it's also a nuts & bolts type of show. It fits more in a genre.

"But I don't think you can write a brand.

"Cultivation is important. You can create something that people will want, but you need to have word-of-mouth, which is viral marketing, which you can't control. You can influence, but you can't make it happen.

"Man, thinking about branding is ridiculous. You start tearing it apart and realize that you've either been following something blindly or completely disregarding something due to the branding you think it has.

"I like coffee--boy, do I like coffee--but I'm no connoisseur; I just like it. And because of that I can pretty much buy whatever brand is on sale, go into any coffee shop or coffee house and get any sort of concoction (though I prefer it just with milk, thank you very much). But I know there are people who can't live without their Starbucks or Folger's or that specific Arabica blend that they can only find at that little shop on 10th. Where's the branding here?

"Now, Neil's point, once I dragged it out of him, is that you brand a character when you create it by making it something that people can relate to. Ok, sure, but how to you know? You can't go into a project, especially one you're creating from scratch and force yourself to conform to certain guidelines so that you hit certain beats and make something you know people will like. Well, you can do that. I've seen it happen. But that's creating for the marketing people. Your story meets the criteria of what's exactly wanted. It's complained about in movie-making; it's done in the book industry. Fill the need. Feed the followers. Make something exactly they way it's demanded and it will sell.

"So, yeah, you can write a brand from the start. But will it be any good?

"My advice to any writer is always, just write. Don't concern yourself with the big picture, with the little details, just write. Write the story you want to tell, give birth to the characters you want to create. And if people read it and go back to it and find themselves attached to the people in your story, then you've done your job, you wrote a good story.

"But is it a brand?

"No. It's a good story. If you get more out of it, if you can move on to the second book, or the sequel, or some merchandising, yes, then you've created a brand.

"First and foremost, though, just create. Tell your stories, build your worlds. Branding comes later. Stop worrying about it."

The column doesn't end there, though - head on over to the The Big Pond forum at the Scryptic Forums and add your opinion to the Pond! Join the collective column and talk writing with myself, this week's contributors and the rest of the Scryptic writers.

My thanks to Larry and Mo for agreeing to jump in to the Pond this week. We ended up with three differing and diverse opinions about branding as relates to writing here and it appears I might have to head back to the, ah, writing board and rethink that hypothesis a bit...! Check out Larry and Mo's respective kingdoms at the PlanetLar and BPVP websites. Even though Mo's is more like a queendom. You know what I mean.

-----------------------------

Neil Kleid won the Xeric grant for NINETY CANDLES, an experimental graphic novella, and his first graphic novel, BROWNSVILLE, (with artist Jake Allen) debuts from NBM Publishing in 2005. A graphic designer by day, Neil harbors notions of writing full time. Weep for him.

Larry Young is the author of the ground-breaking science fiction series ASTRONAUTS IN TROUBLE, the comic book industry allegory PLANET OF THE CAPES, the self-publishing how-to book TRUE FACTS, the revolutionary anthology PROOF OF CONCEPT, the online comics columns LOOSE CANNON, PROOF OF CONCEPT and DAY IN THE LIFE, and the upcoming high-octane action-adventure THE BLACK DIAMOND. He's also the publisher of the award-winning publishing house AiT/Planet Lar.

Maureen "Mo" McTigue has spent the last decade working in and around the comic book industry--at DC Comics, Wizard, Harris Comics and presently at iBooks--and she still can't shake the feeling that she should have run off and joined the circus. But generally speaking, yeah, comics are OK with her. She's edited a ton of comics, a website, written one book on Star Trek and a bunch of articles, interviewing a large group of famous and semi-famous people (including Christian Bale, KISS's Paul Stanley, Bruce Campbell and Larry Young). Now, she's working with novels: horror, thriller, science fiction, and even those graphical ones you hear so much about. As she writes this, the TEEN TITANS cartoon is on in the background. Yeah, what's your point? She's just waiting for 'The Daily Show' to come on. Mo forgot to say she edited magazines in her bio, odd considering that was the most fun she's had in the last three years. That's what happens when you watch too much TV.