I’m interested in this finding, which reflects the way audience behavior differs generationally: Gen-Zers and millennials are more likely than boomers to identify as binge-watchers — and to plan their viewing habits accordingly. Kathryn, how has that impacted the way you think about the concept of a show?
KVA: In the beginning, there was quite a bit of conversation around: What is a streaming episode of television? Is it actually different from linear or a cable show? It took a couple years for the norms to start shifting to the extent I am now able to look at a Netflix season and say, “That has a different shape and requirements than a network season, a premium cable season, or an HBO season.”
We can see things like how episodes of Netflix shows often have limited interesting load-bearing internal structure — instead, their seasons feel like a sloshing bucket of story beats and character arcs. Or how Netflix seasons have shallow cliffhangers between episodes. This is different from how storytelling works in other models.
That relates to another finding: neither binge nor scheduled watchers find cliffhangers that appealing. (Only 13 percent do. In contrast, about 22 percent find them the least appealing part of the viewing appearance.) How would you describe the major differences between the archetypal linear show and the archetypal streaming show in 2025? And how did that become defined over the past decade?
KVA: A linear show still needs to be legible and pleasurable within the episode, one hour at a time. That doesn't necessarily mean that it has what we would think of as an “episodic plot.” What it means is, “This is a unit of a story that offers you something on its own whether or not there’s a thematic wholeness.” An episode of Mad Men tends to have this lovely thematic unity to it. HBO's The Last of Us does not have what I would describe as thematically whole units, but it does often have a dramatic structure to each episode — to the point that it has the capacity to have departure or flashback episodes.
Traditionally, streaming seasons — that is, until The Pitt— do not do this for the most part. They are almost indistinguishable from one another. There will not be different guest stars. There will not be a different directing style; that's a whole different issue on television. There's not going to be an episode where they just all go and hang out at the beach. It will be this one big interwoven movement from episode one through to the end of the season.
JA: I actually think streaming is now broad enough and has tried so many different forms that even Netflix has shows that are more episodic in nature. To me, the difference is that the quintessential streaming show feels like eight hourlong movies and a whole bunch of miniseries that have subsequent sequels to those miniseries. The idea of six-hour movies — which streaming invented and which critics like Kathryn and others bemoan as not being television — is also a different form, a hybrid of TV and movies.
Within traditional linear television, there can be differences, too. You can have a procedural like Matlock or Elsbeth, which will have continuing story lines but also stand-alone elements. Or something that's extreme, like Law & Order or a sitcom, where every episode is self-contained. Even before streaming, TV was evolving to become more sophisticated on this front, like Alias. You could drop in anytime and get that episode, but if you're watching every week it will be an enhanced experience because you're going to understand a lot more.
With these shifts in how audiences relate to release orders and availability, there’s tension in the business models. Linear is structured in such a way that you prioritize getting the most audiences at the head of the release, while with streaming, dropping all at once maybe sorta maximizes engagement. Is that the right read?
JA: I’d push back a bit here. TV networks don’t always need everyone to watch something as soon as a show premieres. It's not like movies. Certainly, the most successful TV shows are ones that connect with viewers right from the start, and that’s why a lot of marketing money gets spent to put eyeballs on that premiere. But if it doesn’t connect, networks can move a show to a different time slot or give it a better lead-in. Linear networks tend to treat shows as organic things they can grow and nurture if they believe in the project and there are at least some signs audiences are responding. Not all the time, obviously, but the whole concept of linear TV in some ways serves as a marketing tool to connect audiences to a project.
What things like weekly releases, time slots, and appointment television do is establish a habit. It reminds you, “I like this show. I'm going to keep returning to it and have an engagement over the course of nine months.” In some ways, streaming is even more dependent on getting you to watch right away, because if you watch one episode and don’t love it, you may forget to come back. It's going to sit in the queue, but you're going to move on.
Kathryn, I suspect the behavior of younger audiences stacking up episodes to watch all at once later contributes to the difficulty of shows breaking through in the cultural conversation. What do you think?
KVA: It raises an interesting question: For viewers who are uninterested in a communal TV experience, how do we think about the best way to write about television, to promote and market shows, and to have a functional economic model that sustains the medium? It’s a more challenging business if it's just all this big backlog and there aren't reliable moments to market.
But I don’t think this is baked in forever. I don't believe that for the rest of their lives, Gen-Z viewers are going to be like, “I never want to watch a thing at the same time as my friends.” And there are ways — thanks to algorithmic behavior and emerging platforms — that shows are having moments. Audiences are consuming clips of The Good Doctor on TikTok. Young people are all watching them all together, just not in a way that registers with Nielsen.
This also explains why shows like The Pitt and The White Lotus can still have monoculture-like moments despite being more connected to release schedules and a traditional TV calendar: There are all these different spaces where a communal experience can form. I see lots of talk about The Pitt on TikTok. When you throw a big enough party, people will want to come, even if they don't usually go to parties.
JA: The smarter streamers are realizing that you can serve both binge and scheduled audiences rather than use the Netflix model, which is dogmatic. Yes, there are a lot of viewers who want to watch all the episodes at once, but if you look at something like The Pitt, not only did Max drop one episode every week after the first two, it did a traditional thing in that it dropped them at 9 p.m. ET on Thursdays rather than, like, 3 a.m. That's what Netflix does and what Max previously did, because that’s what you're supposed to do to maximize total numbers for internal data. Casey Bloys, the head of Max content, looked at that and said, "Why are we doing that? That's dumb.”
With scheduled releases, a lot of people might not watch it right away, but you basically get several weeks of free marketing courtesy of the people who are watching. You have social media going crazy with clips from episodes. In the end, most of the viewing will not take place within the linear time period. But it’s marketing, and it's effective because Max isn't spending anything more by releasing these episodes over four months, right? It costs them the same. They don't have to buy any ads. The internet does the work for them. It pierces people's attention, and that can accumulate in the ratings. Those big numbers you see for The Last of Us, House of the Dragon — those are not who watches on Sunday night. That’s maybe 4 million people. The 30 million comes when you add up the people who watch over 40 days.
Netflix has stubbornly stuck to what was a good way to introduce its service and to differentiate itself, but is not good for keeping its shows in the public consciousness.
Where are we in the project of combining the upsides of linear with the conveniences from streaming?
KVA: Think about what you can watch at this moment: We have Elsbeth, Matlock, High Potential, all of these network-y things, and also every single thing on Netflix. Having lots of different kinds of television available at once is good. What’s frustrating is that it’s taking a long time to figure out a model that blends the hybridization that you were describing. But I’m hopeful that something like The Pitt represents a way forward for more kinds of streaming shows.
JA: We’re seeing everyone experimenting. For example, networks are taking runs of streaming shows and putting them on their prime-time schedule. Paradise is getting a linear run on ABC now after releasing weekly on Hulu. Paradise could have been a binge show — and probably would have worked better as a binge show. It's designed that way. But I agree you need to make different kinds of shows for different kinds of audiences. It’s about balance.
I want to run these two lists in the findings by both of you:
The most-binged shows among the respondents in 2024 were Yellowstone, The Boys, House of the Dragon, Stranger Things, Bridgerton, Grey's Anatomy, Criminal Minds, The Office, Ted Lasso, and Game of Thrones.
And their most-watched weekly release shows in 2024 were 90 Day Fiance, Big Brother, Survivor, Love Island, The Bachelorette, The Masked Singer, The Boys, House of the Dragon, and counterintuitively, Evil.
What are the biggest through-lines that stand out to you?
KVA: Obviously, there's a huge reality contingent in the weekly shows. It’s interesting how few traditional “comedies” are in that binge list. And there are shows like Game of Thrones and The Boys that are big enough phenomena, particularly for men, that they can exist in both of these release-schedule spaces.
JA: It’s not a surprise that reality is up there on the weekly list. Survivor is a strong performer with all age groups, but it has twice as many adult viewers under 50 as anything else on TV Wednesday nights in Nielsen’s same-day ratings.The Chicago shows on NBC actually have a slightly bigger overall audience, but they’re far behind in that demo. Younger viewers love Survivor, and they want to watch it in real time. Why? Because there are spoilers.
That's why something like House of the Dragon does well. People want to see these plot twists. They are communal experiences. So it's a matter of: How do you construct your shows to do that? How do you make them events people want to watch immediately and not whenever they get around to it?
Let’s stay on reality. One of the narratives about linear television these days is that it’s propped up by live sports. Is it fair to say unscripted shows are also helping the cause?
JA: Unscripted does two things. First, it's less expensive than sports and scripted shows. That’s why you see so much of it. Plus, even though reality shows may have a smaller overall viewership, it’s often a younger audience, which advertisers love. Second, it's a more effective way of keeping people. Competition shows like The Voice and American Idol, which people thought would be dead by now based upon their declining ratings a few years ago, are stable because they have audiences that keep watching every week.
Even Netflix is trying to get into this: It’s taking Pop the Balloon from YouTube and making it into a live reality show. It’s going to be its first true weekly reality live show. It also has the John Mulaney show. Why? Because those shows cost next to nothing compared to Stranger Things, and they allow people to make an appointment to watch Netflix.
For a long time, Netflix didn't have to worry about people opening its app, but as other streamers mature — and as more people think Netflix isn't worth it and cancel — it needs things to get people to return. I could see it having a different live show that releases episodes on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, then having a big event on Friday. They'll never admit it, but I bet there's a little bit of a problem with getting people to reopen the app, and they're looking to solve that.
KVA: Yeah, Netflix is in a sticky place where it has decided that it’s not just going to binge-drop a whole season at once. Shows like Love Is Blind have been doing chunks of episode drops, rather than all 12 at once, and they've been doing that for several seasons now. That has been a successful model for them: People get a sense of satisfaction from having many episodes that they can chew on over the weekend, but Netflix still enjoys cliffhanger opportunities and long-term marketing benefits. I have no idea whether it will make weekly work. John Mulaney is an interesting but not ideal test case for it given that it’s very specific and fairly small. It’s not the kind of show that you put on TV thinking, Four quadrants, let's go!
The survey had some findings about choice paralysis and overabundance. Forty-one percent of people say they give platforms five to ten minutes of their time as they're searching around before giving up. Gen Z and millennials take a little longer, but in general, it feels like looking for something to watch is a drag. Is this a problem with home pages?
KVA: There’s a lot about home pages that generally work. The fact that Netflix has a top ten …
JA: Alleged top ten.
KVA: Well, even if it’s not accurate, I’m curious what it wants to tell me most people are watching on this app.
Where I find Netflix fails — most platforms tend to fail at this — is informing me when there's a new installment of a thing I have previously watched. And for all of the algorithm's alleged ability to know my viewing habits, I find it bad at being able to recommend the kinds of things that I’m actually interested in. Whether that's because I'm a critic who watches so many different things that it can't get good pattern data from me, I’m not sure. But my kids have their own profiles, and I watch them also endlessly click around.
JA: There's the realistic home page and my ideal home page. My dream one is actually the home page of my Apple TV device. It pulls everything in from all your subscriptions. The first thing I see is a little stream of everything that's on Apple, and then there’s “Continue Watching.” And it shows me if there's a new episode of something I’m already engaged with. It automatically keeps track across every major service (with the exception of Netflix, which refuses to play ball with Apple). And that’s great, because people want an experience where they can get a sense of everything that’s going on, all collected in one place.
In general, I would advocate for streamers to create channels within their apps that can present different experiences on the home page. I did a story on Netflix about eight years ago that mentioned its different channels, or “verticals.” You could have a channel for Virgin River people, for Hot Frosty people, and then you have another channel that does reality shows. Some platforms already have hub experiences, but they're poorly curated. What we need is curation. We need service operators to act like programmers.
KVA: It helps if they had a sense of what their own programming was in a broader sense, which does not often feel like the case for me.
