Reality television has long been underrepresented when it comes to individual recognition at the Emmys, especially for the contestants and personalities who define their shows as much as any host or format. A non-gendered category for reality performers would change that, offering a long-overdue platform to celebrate the people at the heart of unscripted storytelling.

Contestants like the magnetic and effortlessly charismatic Gabby Windey from Peacock’s “The Traitors,” or Eva Erickson, a breakout star from Season 48 of “Survivor” and the show’s first openly autistic contestant, exemplify the kind of on-screen presence that drives viewership and shapes cultural conversations.

Give them their flowers.

New rules introduced for the 2025 Emmy cycle have drawn criticism for redefining who qualifies as a “guest” performer — specifically excluding those previously nominated for lead or supporting roles. Critics argue these disadvantages already-recognized performers and creates confusion. For instance, Meryl Streep was deemed ineligible for guest consideration for Hulu’s “Only Murders in the Building” despite appearing in only four episodes, while co-star Paul Rudd almost qualified by virtue of playing a new character. However, if you’ve never been nominated, you can enter the guest category without question.

A revision is likely on the horizon.

Let’s get everyone in the mix.

A proposed change would allow Television Academy members to opt in for final-round voting in a limited number of categories outside their primary peer group — taking a cue from a similar model recently introduced by the Oscars.

Currently, all members can vote in just 15 program categories (beyond their assigned peer group categories), but expanding participation could be a step toward greater inclusivity and industry-wide engagement. Under this proposal, members could vote in additional categories, provided they certify that they have viewed all nominated entries.

This cross-disciplinary approach — where, for example, editors might weigh in on writing or actors might recognize excellence in directing — would better reflect the collaborative spirit of television.

Additionally, the Academy could consider implementing ranked choice voting for both nominations and final winners, allowing members to list their preferences in order. This would ensure that passion-driven, standout work rises to the top, rather than being lost amid scattered, checkbox-style voting.

Currently, the number of acting nominees in each Emmy category is determined by the volume of submissions — a system that many critics view as inconsistent and arbitrary. Under the existing rules, categories with fewer than 20 submissions may only yield five, but will only expand to six when 80 are reached, and so on, capping at eight with more than 240 submissions. This fluctuating standard often leads to confusion for viewers and industry insiders alike, while also creating disparities between categories that should be judged with equal weight.

My proposal calls for a uniform cap of six or seven nominees in all acting categories, main acting and guest, regardless of submission totals. Standardizing the number would bring much-needed consistency across genres — from comedy and drama to limited series and variety, ensuring a more level playing field for performers.

At a time when television acting is reaching new heights across both traditional and emerging platforms, a standardized nominee count would guarantee that deserving performances are not sidelined by technicalities.

With variety entertainment now encompassing a broader spectrum of roles than ever before — from NBC’s “Saturday Night Live” cast members to awards show emcees and late-night hosts — the Television Academy should consider adding two non-gendered categories for variety performers, one for lead and one for supporting. Until 2008, the Emmys featured a category for outstanding individual performance in a variety or music program. This was a mainstay for “Saturday Night Live” cast members such as Will Ferrell and Tina Fey, as well as Oscar emcees including Ellen DeGeneres and Jon Stewart.

However, when Don Rickles won the award in 2008 for the documentary “Mr. Warmth: The Don Rickles Project,” which featured various clips from notable TV shows, movies and stand-up comedy appearances, the category was eliminated the following year.

Currently, there are four separate categories for variety: special (live), special (pre-recorded), talk series and scripted variety. Why not allow stand-up comics for their specials, notable emcees and ongoing sketch comedy programs to compete for recognition? This change would modernize the awards to reflect the evolving industry and allow performers like Lady Gaga on “Saturday Night Live” or Trevor Noah at the Grammys to compete on equal footing, regardless of gender identity or format.

There are multiple proposals and potential solutions for what many see as a broken structural system for limited or anthology series — a space where many believe much of the “good stuff” in television currently resides. Here are two of the leading ideas:

a. Eliminate the limited/anthology series category altogether. Comedy and drama are genres; limited series is not. Programs like Netflix’s “Adolescence” could compete in the drama category, while Apple TV+’s spin-off “Side Quest” could enter as a comedy. The “TV movie” category would remain a standalone. This change should be accompanied by an expansion to a guaranteed 10 nominees each in the comedy and drama series categories, allowing more room for standout projects.

b. Alternatively, retain the limited/anthology series category but guarantee eight nominees annually, regardless of the number of submissions — as the Academy already does for comedy and drama series. While submissions for limited series have decreased, the comedy category has also seen a decline. Currently, Variety reports only 67 submissions in the comedy race, which under normal conditions wouldn’t even justify six nominees, let alone eight. A guaranteed nomination count would provide parity and encourage broader competition among limited series.

As YouTube, TikTok and other premium web-based platforms — along with indie streamers like Dropout — increasingly produce Emmy-caliber content, both the Television Academy and NATAS should encourage these creators to compete in appropriate Emmy categories, whether Primetime, Daytime, Children’s & Family, or International. This is especially relevant for talk or scripted variety categories, if those distinctions are maintained. If integration into existing categories isn’t feasible, then a new, dedicated category for digital content is more than warranted. Imagine Dropout’s hilarious “Smartypants” competing against Amelia Dimoldenberg’s “Chicken Shop Date,” which garners millions of views with each new episode release.

Imagine if every show had the chance to submit its most compelling 22 to 60 minutes — that jaw-dropping, viral, watercooler moment that defines a season. That’s the vision behind a proposed new category: Outstanding Episode of the Year. Under this model, each eligible series — whether drama, comedy, reality, documentary or otherwise — would submit one standout episode to be judged by the entire Television Academy membership.

Episodes like “Through the Valley” from “The Last of Us,” featuring Pedro Pascal’s emotional exit, could stand alongside “The Oner” from “The Studio”; the heartfelt moment Jeff Probst sheds tears on “Survivor”; Connor sharing his first kiss with Georgie on “Love on the Spectrum”; and Gabby Windey being her most unapologetic self in any scene from “The Traitors.” These entries could compete directly against one another in a high-stakes showdown celebrating the best of both scripted and unscripted television.

It would be the only Emmy category where all genres face off — a true showcase of television’s most unforgettable moments. The category could also serve as a bellwether for broader series recognition, while highlighting episodic brilliance that might otherwise be overlooked in format-specific races.

Streamlining efforts to combine the continuously dwindling talk series and scripted variety categories into one seems like a no-brainer. Both categories have been significantly reduced, with talk series currently tracking only 12 submissions and scripted variety just five. Additionally, having the weekly talk show “Last Week Tonight with John Oliver” compete directly against the long-running sketch comedy “Saturday Night Live” — solely because Oliver’s show doesn’t feature guests — makes little sense. There’s also the question of how to weigh the difficulty of producing daily talk shows such as “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” and “Jimmy Kimmel Live” against weekly series like First We Feast’s “Hot Ones” and Netflix’s “Everybody’s Live with John Mulaney.” Unifying the categories could better reflect the genre’s current hybrid nature. Critics argue this move would force voters to evaluate content more holistically, rather than through outdated format distinctions.

The term “TV movie” often carries a dated, low-prestige connotation — something the Television Academy should be actively working to change. A proposed new title, Outstanding Film Made for TV or Streaming, could help reframe the category and attract high-caliber filmmakers who might currently avoid it due to its perceived lack of prestige. Directors like David Fincher or Martin Scorsese, whose work often blurs the line between theatrical and streaming, may be more inclined to participate if the category’s name reflected the modern landscape.

Consider this year’s “Carry On,” directed by Jaume Collet-Serra — a Netflix hit that garnered strong viewership and critical praise, yet is not among this year’s Emmy submissions. A film of that caliber deserves to be in the conversation. Renaming the category could be a key step toward elevating its visibility and value within the industry.

And then you have various movies that premiere at the Sundance Film Festival, that get acquired by companies like HBO (i.e., “Are You OK?”), and will now be better suited to the filmmaker’s intentions.

Additionally, this change would open the door for a more logical separation in acting categories, allowing performers in films made-for-TV or streaming to compete independently from those in limited or anthology series. Currently, grouping the two together creates a mismatch, as the artistic goals, narrative structures and production scopes are often vastly different. A more thoughtful distinction would honor each form on its own terms.