Podcast Summary: The Emmys vs. the Audience—Which Shows People Actually Watch

Podcast: The Town with Matthew Belloni
Episode Date: September 12, 2025
Host: Matt Belloni
Guest: Julia Alexander (Streaming Analyst, Puck)
Theme: Examining the gap between critically acclaimed (Emmy-nominated) shows and what the audience is actually watching, using fresh Nielsen streaming data.

Episode Overview

This episode dives into the perennial Emmy weekend question: are the shows collecting the most awards actually the ones people are watching? Matt Belloni and data analyst Julia Alexander analyze Nielsen data on the viewership of Emmy-nominated shows, discussing industry trends, the effect of Emmy nominations on streaming numbers, cost-efficiency of content, and what these numbers mean for platforms like Netflix, Apple TV+, and HBO Max.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Emmys and Viewership: Do Awards Translate to Audience?

• Purpose: Instead of the usual awards prognostication, Matt and Julia focus on which Emmy nominees are true hits with viewers, and how these shows perform relative to their cost and the so-called "efficiency quotient" (00:48–04:51).
• Matt: “It’s not a secret that the most popular shows are not usually the ones that win awards.” [00:48]

2. Deep Dive: Nielsen Data on Drama Series Nominees

• Eligibility period: June 1, 2024–May 31, 2025.
• Top shows by hours viewed:
  • The White Lotus (HBO) — 210M hours [05:44]
  • Severance (Apple TV+) — 157.5M hours
  • The Last of Us (HBO) — [implied top 3]
  • The Pit (HBO Max) — 128.5M hours
• Julia: “The Pit for me really is the Emmy success story of the year.” [05:44]

Efficiency and Emmy Bumps

• The Pit saw a 200% week-over-week viewership spike after nominations, unlike major hits with existing fanbases such as The White Lotus or The Last of Us, whose viewership was “built in” already [07:32].
• Julia: “For the Pit to be able to do a similar style cultural zeitgeist following it at, you know, a fraction of the cost…shows the possibility for other types of these styles of programs.” [08:01]

Why “Efficiency” Beats Prestige Sometimes

• The Pit cost less than $6M per episode. Matt suggests its potential victory is a nod to sustainable, cost-efficient programming with broad appeal.
• Matt: “This was a lower cost experiment. And honestly that is why I think it’s going to win best drama series over Severance.” [08:33]

Apple TV+’s Moment

• Severance and Slow Horses both charted for Apple, signaling growth in mainstream and awards-friendly hits.
• Julia: “Apple...has two shows within this. Netflix only has one. Netflix has the Diplomat.” [09:25]
• Growing confidence shows in Apple’s willingness to raise prices.

International Performance

• Brief discussion on The Diplomat (Netflix) not making as big a domestic splash.
• “Maybe The Diplomat was huge overseas, but it’s not as big as Paradise on Hulu, which is surprising to me.” — Matt [10:47]

3. Case Study: Inefficiency—Andor (Disney+)

• Hugely expensive ($20M/episode), but just 8.88M hours viewed [12:01].
• Awarded 14 nominations, but snubbed for lead actor; considered a technical, not acting, showcase [12:53].
• Julia: “Oh, without question,” when asked if Andor is the least efficient show [13:41].

4. Comedy Series: Surprising Contenders

• Top shows:
  • Abbott Elementary (ABC/Hulu) — 184.1M hours
  • Only Murders in the Building (Hulu) — 159.1M
  • The Bear (Hulu) — 141.1M [16:24–17:04]
• Notable insight: Disney dominates–Hulu and ABC leading viewership in comedy.
• Matt: “Disney continues to dominate within the comedy section.” [17:03]

Niche vs. Mainstream Hits

• The Studio (Apple TV+) highly favored but low audience: 16.9M hours — about 1/11th of Abbott’s audience [18:49].
• “Everybody I know watched The Studio...Not very many people in the real world watch The Studio.” — Matt [18:49]
• Even so, Emmy noms led to a 60% viewership boost the week after [19:37].

Apple TV+ and Emmy Voters

• Less than 1% of total connected TV time in US, but highly influential sample (LA/New York crowd) [19:47–20:09].
• Matt: “Apple TV+...I think, has the most to gain from a big platform on the Emmys.” [21:02]

5. Do Ratings Matter for Emmy Wins?

• Then vs. Now: In earlier Emmy eras, more mainstream hits (Friends, Frasier, Seinfeld, The Office) would win. Now, Emmy voters gravitate towards “niche” shows with industry appeal.
• “Emmys used to be more populist, but I would still argue that a big fat hit can help you at the Emmys, certainly with nominations.” — Matt [22:44]
• Julia: “If you’re losing monoculture...finding ways to bring in some form of audience that is feeling connected...serves the academy much better than just saying, we love this one little thing.” [23:40]

6. Limited/Anthology Series: Viewership vs. Accolades

• Monsters: The Lyle and Eric Menendez Story (Netflix) — 150M hours, likely won’t win [25:13]
• Adolescents (Netflix/global): huge international hit, only 78M US hours (four episodes) [26:25]
• Dying for Sex: Least watched—5.9M hours, but Emmy appeal from star Michelle Williams [27:18]
• The Penguin (HBO), Black Mirror also cited as notable nominees.

7. Reality Competition Series: The Survivor Effect

• Survivor (CBS/Paramount+) dominates, followed by RuPaul’s Drag Race, Amazing Race, Top Chef, and The Traitors (Peacock, 93M hours) [29:02–29:47]
• Low Traitors numbers attributed to being on a smaller platform, but Emmy voters love it.
• Alan Cumming has become the dominant Emmy winner in the category, overtaking RuPaul [30:21]

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• The Value of "Low-Cost Prestige":

  “For the Pit to be able to do a similar style cultural zeitgeist following it at, you know, a fraction of the cost that it would do for a traditional HBO…shows the possibility for other types of these styles of programs.” – Julia [08:01]

• On Niche Wins:

  "Everybody I know watched The Studio...Not very many people in the real world watch The Studio." – Matt [18:49]

• On Apple TV+’s Market Share:

  "When we think about Apple TV plus, we have to remember it represents less than 1% of total connected TV viewing time in the U.S." – Julia [19:47]

• On the Emmys’ Relevance:

  "If you’re losing monoculture...finding ways to bring in some form of audience that is feeling connected through something that they all participate in...serves the academy much better." – Julia [23:40]

• Efficiency vs. Excess:

  "Andor: gigantic cost. And among these, it's only above Slow Horses, which cost a fraction of that." – Matt [13:43]

• Industry vs. Audience:

  "Why are we doing an Emmys show on the broadcast networks…when it’s really just a three-hour commercial for HBO?" – Matt [24:04]

Timestamps for Key Segments

| Segment | Timestamp | |------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------| | Episode Introduction & Focus | 00:48–04:51 | | Analyzing Drama Series Nielsen Data | 04:51–09:25 | | The Pit’s “Emmy Bump” & Efficiency | 06:13–08:33 | | Apple TV+, Netflix & International Differences | 09:25–12:01 | | The “Andor” Experiment (Cost vs. Audience) | 12:01–15:23 | | Comedy Series Rankings & Disney Dominance | 16:12–17:51 | | The Studio’s Small Audience/Big Emmy Clout | 18:49–21:32 | | Do Ratings Matter for Emmy Wins? | 22:15–24:04 | | Limited Series: Monsters, Adolescents, Penguin | 24:40–28:43 | | Reality Competition Show Ratings & Trends | 29:02–30:35 |

Tone Reference

• Matt is sharp, wry, and deeply informed on industry trends. Julia meets him with unvarnished, data-driven insight, often injected with dry wit. Their exchanges are detailed yet accessible.
• Frequent references to industry inside jokes and Emmy lore provide context—like Tim Cook’s attendance at award shows or Ricky Gervais’ legendary Apple/Golden Globes roast.

Conclusion

This episode provides a granular look into the real and often-misaligned relationship between TV awards prestige and audience engagement. While the Emmys remain a powerful marketing tool, the shows that get watched and the shows that get lauded frequently have surprisingly little overlap—yet both matter to the health and strategy of networks and streaming platforms. For viewers and industry watchers alike, these insights are a revealing look under the hood of Hollywood’s awards-industrial complex.