What’s a network to do when its new drama or sitcom lands with a dud on the television landscape, putting at risk months of work and millions in production costs?

In the future, the answer, it seems, will be to “double burst” it.

In a proposal that is stirring antipathy among writers and emerging as one of the chief stumbling blocks to a new labor deal, the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers is calling for the freedom to rebroadcast some new programs within 14 days of their premiere. The catch is that the so-called “double burst” would pay writers just 25 percent of the standard network rerun residual, or 60 percent if the new show airs on cable.

It’s a subset of the contentious residuals debate at the center of negotiations between writers and producers. How the double-burst dilemma plays out could go a long way in determining whether an accord can be reached before the current writers’ contract expires May 1.

Analysts estimate that strikes by writers andactors, whose contract expires July 1, could cost the region up to $250 million per week.

The AMPTP, which represents the studios and networks in their negotiations with Hollywood’s creative guilds, characterizes the double burst as a new revenue stream for the networks and guild members alike. The producers insist with some sympathy from writers that double bursting has become an imperative in the television business, as costly pilots attempt to connect with an increasingly fragmented audience. Nonetheless, writers say the standing proposal for double bursting is a rip-off that would cost scribes up to $30 million over their next three-year contract.

“The producers said there weren’t going to be any rollbacks in their proposal, but this is a rollback,” said Cheryl Rhoden, assistant executive director of Writers Guild of America West. “There is a good marketing reason to take a look at this. We are open to the companies’ position. Our concern is the depth to which this would go.”

By “depth,” Rhoden is referring to the number of hours that networks and cable stations would be permitted to schedule double-burst programming. The current offer of 52 hours per year by the major networks and a quarter of that amount by the smaller networks is too much, said Rhoden, who declined to say if a higher residual percentage on double-burst programming would appease writers.

Across the table, producers say the subject is open to negotiation, but they maintain that double bursting is a winning proposition for both sides. At a recent news briefing, Walt Disney Co. President Robert Iger went so far as to call the proposal “an intelligence test.”

“This is a forward-thinking proposal designed to create new business,” Iger said. “In my opinion, this is a new market. It’s not to replace the rerun down the road; it’s an additive.”

“When it’s money out of your pocket, you can call it anything you want,” countered Rhoden. “It’s still money out of (the writer’s) pocket.”

Long odds

The motivation behind the double burst is easy to understand. With intense pressure for immediate ratings results, rare is the show that is given the leeway to struggle for a season or two in the hope of building a competitive audience. Networks want to hedge their bet when it comes to the critical first few episodes of a new series, both by selling twice as much advertising for the same episode and by giving viewers an opportunity to tune in during different time slots.

According to the AMPTP, 75 percent of new series don’t make it through a single season. In addition, only 15 percent of all series introduced in the past three years are still on the air today. The three-year mark is key for content owners because it guarantees enough episodes for a program to have a shot at syndication, which means new revenues on basically the same investment.

“I think (the double burst) is a good idea because the networks have to catch mobile consumers of entertainment wherever and whenever they can,” said Harold Vogel, a media analyst with New York-based Vogel Capital Management. “In the age of TiVo and ReplayTV, the set times and schedules that networks have relied on are not locked in stone anymore. They need to be flexible.”

Flexibility is one thing, but writers maintain that double-burst programming would cost them much more than the AMPTP is letting on.

Under the producers’ proposal, the double-burst system would take effect in the second year of a new contract with the writers. The WGA says double bursting would cost writers $15,000 for each discounted network rerun and $1,500 for a double burst on cable. That adds up to $11.6 million in the second contract year, based on a projection that 60 percent of the allowable time slots would be used, and $19.4 million in the third year, when 100 percent of the time slots are allocated. It does not take into account possible loss of revenue from other guild shows being usurped by double-burst programming.

But AMPTP spokesman Barry Liden said the WGA’s figures are “pure speculation.”

“The spirit of the proposal is to help both sides in the end. It’s a trial. We’re saying, ‘Let’s test this out,'” Liden said. “We think it will give writers more opportunities to have their shows more easily accepted by the audience.”

Clock running

In addition, AMPTP negotiators Iger, Warner Bros.’ Chairman Barry Meyer and DreamWorks SKG principal Jeffrey Katzenberg said that double-bursting would help maintain the supremacy of scripted programming in an era of mushrooming reality television.

“I guarantee you that the percentage of scripted programming on the networks is going to decrease if nothing changes,” he said.

“Clearly the marketplace has changed, and this is a modest attempt to address that change,” Meyer added.

Although the WGA agrees that writers would benefit when their shows are given a greater chance to succeed, the guild says that presenting the double-burst proposal as a bid to rescue scripted material from the entertainment dust bin is disingenuous.

“When a show reruns, writers get residuals that’s how the system works,” Rhoden said. “They want writers to take a 75 percent cut.”

A spokesman for the Screen Actors Guild, which also is likely to see the double-burst proposal in its upcoming negotiations with producers, declined to comment on the proposal to the writers, saying the guild would wait to see how the talks pan out.

While it is only a piece of the puzzle, the double-burst is an issue whose resolution is taking on increased urgency with just a month to go before the current writers’ contract expires.