Slay It Ain't So

The WB's Buffy faces the scary precedent of pulling up stakes and moving networks.
by Lynette Rice

Hundreds of ad buyers are crammed into a New York City ballroom, as they are every year, to hear what The WB has in store for fall. The room is plastered with posters of the network's personalities: Alyssa Milano, David Boreanaz, Jessica Biel, and- wait a minute- where's Sarah Michelle Gellar, The WB's No. 1 star? She's across town, in another ballroom, at a presentation by Fox, Buffy the Vampire Slayer's new crypt. That could be the scenario come May, when the networks unveil their fall schedule to advertisers. And it's a possibility that's set off a battle as bloody as any the slayer has waged.

The WB and Buffy's producers are fighting over the drama's future, and many in the business consider the possible- and precedent setting outcome- that the studio would yank the show from The WB, which launched it five years ago,and put it on its affiliate network, Fox (both are owned by Rupert Murdock's News Corp.)- to be nothing short of industry- shaking. "It's the worst thing that could happen," says Marty Adelstein, a partner in the talent agency Endeavor. "Fox [the studio] has a lot of shows on other networks and they do a lot of shows for their own network. They're good at spreading it around. but this would send the sign: Why pick up a show from a studio if it's going to eventually end up on its own network? It's bad for business."

Or perhaps just for the way broadcast- network business has been conducted up to now. Given the dramatic shifts in the TV landscape (mega-mergers; nets insisting on co-owning shows with producers)' others argue that the rules must change. "If Fox [the studio] did this in the old days, it would be out of business with one third of its clients,"' says Pax TV CEO Jeff Sagansky, former head of Entertainment at CBS. "Now there are so many networks. Even if the studio were to lose The WB as a client, there are plenty of other places to sell shows." Adds another studio head: "Why not let Fox put it up on their own network and reap the benefits of the advertising revenue?"

Self- dealing, as it's often called, is still akin to sacrilege for The WB's Jamie Kellner, who, in effect, raised Buffy: "Nobody wanted the show; it didn't perform [at first] but we stuck with it." The position of The WB's founder (and of this month, CEO of Turner Broadcasting, a division of AOL Time-Warner, ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY's parent company) is that fledgling network is finally on target to make a profit next year- unless forced to pay Buffy's studio, Twentieth Century Fox, its $2 million- plus- per- episode asking price. Kellner is offering $1.6 million, "It's not our No. 1 show," he argues. "It's not a show like ER that stands above the pack."

Such statements sets Joss Whedon's blood boiling. Granted, Buffy isn't No. 1 (that would be Seventh Heaven), but, as the Slayer's creator points out, his show "put The WB on the map critically," and it continues to be the networks most acclaimed series. "For [The WB] to be scrambling to explain why it's not cost efficient- it's their second- highest-rated show," says Whedon. "They need to step up and acknowledge that financially."

It's not like the studio expected to make money before now. Producers routinely lose millions in a show's first five years- and that's assuming there is a first five. Up until then, the networks pays a nominal licensing fee- anywhere between $900,000 and $1.1 million for a drama- and the studio swallows the deficit. (The WB currently pays $1 million to air an episode of Buffy, less than half of what it costs to make.) But after the fifth year, a hit show's studio can generally get the networks to cough up big bucks (Friends and Frasier's licensing fee's for instance, both skyrocketed when their contracts were up.) Kellner is arguing that (a) Buffy isn't enough of a hit, and (b) the rules for an emerging network are different than those for a mature network. To which Twentieth Century Fox has replied, tough luck; if you can change the rules we can threaten to do the same, and take our show to another network- even if it's our own.

Thanks to a clause in Buffy's contract (allowing the studio to move the show to any network if it reaches an impasse with The WB), Twentieth Century Fox may do just that. Though studio insiders have floated ABC as a possible bidder, sources there say reports of the Slayer moving to Alphabet City are unlikely. Which leaves Fox. What sort of fallout does the studio anticipate? "I don't believe [moving Buffy] will have any impact at all," says Gary Newman, president of Twentieth Century Fox TV. "I have been assured that they fully understand our position. They understand we have a business to run."

Buffy might, in fact, be a better fit on the older- skewing, male dominated Fox. (Certainly it will have a champion in Fox Entertainment prexy Gail Berman, who helped develop the show while working for Sandollar Productions and still claims an exec producer credit.) One of Kellner's biggest arguments for keeping Buffy's licensing down is its fans; rather than sucking in new teens- the lifeblood of The WB- the show attracts increasingly older viewers. When the drama moved to Tuesdays in 1998, it averaged a 19 share among 12- to 17- year- olds; now it's luck to get a 12. Conversely, Seventh Heaven is averaging a hefty 18 share. "Our audience is a younger audience," says Kellner. "Maybe what we should be doing is not to stay with the same show for many years, and refresh our lineup."

"The idea that [Buffy viewers] are getting too old is a spurious argument for not paying a show that has much to do with The WB being The WB as anything else," counters Whedon, who in fact, has never bought the argument that his show is for teens, "We were told the median age of [our viewers] was 26 to 29 years old in year 2 of the show."

Whedon acknowledges a debt to Kellner ("There's no other place where Buffy could have happened") but considers it paid in full. "There are advantages and disadvantages," he says of leaving. "Other networks also have more hit shows they need to promote. We could be exposed to a new audience, but we also could be buried. But if we decide to move, I'm fine with it."

Keeping close tabs on Buffy Columbia TriStar Television, which could have a fight of its own next season when Dawson's Creek's contract is up. Like Buffy, Dawson's was a landmark show for The WB, and its production costs have also risen dramatically over the years. Columbia fears Kellner may hardball them, too. "It's getting increasingly difficult to get shows on the air and to make them financially successful. Networks need to realize that," says Len Grossi, Columbia TriStar's president. "Deficits are large, and even with a big hit, returns are shrinking [because of increased overhead and sharing profits]. Something's got to give."
Buffy's fate may be decided before May's up-fronts. For those who believe the Hellmouth will open should the studio choose its sister net, Sagansky says phooey. Good as Buffy is, it's always going to have limited appeal; it won't make or break either network. "This is not a game changer, he says. "It's not a Seinfeld."