This discussion has been closed.
Posted by abcdefg (U14604353) on Sunday, 3rd February 2013
Just a thought, but how much, per listener, does each episode cost?
I suppose there's an annual budget from the Ö÷²¥´óÐã "soap department" ?
And I've heard there's something called RAJAR which calculates listening figures.
If anyone can help, I can do the arithmetic myself.
Without prejudice, and quantities, I'd estimate about £0.02p/episode?
and how much per licence payer per episode?
and what is its carbon footprint?
'Ö'
And what became of its straw hat, wot should have come to me?
, in reply to message 4.
Posted by Reggie Trentham (U2746099) on Sunday, 3rd February 2013
Actually it isn't that silly a question, even if a bit pointless. I think the Rajar figures are published but the problem may lie with the willingness of the Ö÷²¥´óÐã to release the Archers budget, something I doubt whether they would want to do. If they did it would, as the OP points out, be a very simple sum.
Iirc we had a discussion in N&Q on the cost structure of TA relatively recently. And fascinating it was for those of us of the accountancy persuasion. I can't be @rsed to find it though.
‘Just a thought, but how much, per listener, does each episode cost?’
The cost per episode is £3.8K of which actors salaries are £1.8K and the cost per listener is ½ of one penny.
, in reply to message 6.
Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Monday, 4th February 2013
The cost per episode is £3.8K of which actors salaries are £1.8K and the cost per listener is ½ of one penny.Ìý
Implying 760,000 listeners per episode, which you are presumably deriving from your mistaken belief that there are 4.56 million listening events per week.
In fact there are that many unique listeners, so the cost per listener episode is unknown. But your figure of a ha'penny is a reasonable estimate for the total WEEKLY cost per listener, whether they listen for 5 minutes or the maximum possible 225mins.
I am assuming your £3800/episode is accurate.
, in reply to message 7.
Posted by Tayler Cresswell - Host (U14232848) on Monday, 4th February 2013
Hi all
I can check the numbers with the team.
As I understand the listener numbers, the last quarter figures were 4.87m listeners - which means that 4.87m people listened to The Archers at least once in an average week. If they listened 6 times, or also to all the repeats, it would still be counted the same.
There's a blog post about the latest listener numbers here:
Tayler
, in reply to message 8.
Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Monday, 4th February 2013
As I understand the listener numbers, the last quarter figures were 4.87m listeners - which means that 4.87m people listened to The Archers at least once in an average week. If they listened 6 times, or also to all the repeats, it would still be counted the same.
There's a blog post about the latest listener numbers here:
°Õ²¹²â±ô±ð°ùÌý
Tayler we all know that but Seveek refuses to believe it.
One recalls the words of Cromwell to the Scottish Clergy
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken"
Hi all
I can check the numbers with the team.
As I understand the listener numbers, the last quarter figures were 4.87m listeners - which means that 4.87m people listened to The Archers at least once in an average week. If they listened 6 times, or also to all the repeats, it would still be counted the same.
There's a blog post about the latest listener numbers here:
Tayler
Ìý
Thanks for the listener number info - I did wonder about the "unique listener" question.
Is there a published figure for the cost of the Archers - per minute, per episode, per year or anything?
The cost per episode is £3.8K.
Ìý
Where does this figure come from, please?
, in reply to message 10.
Posted by Reggie Trentham (U2746099) on Monday, 4th February 2013
Is there a published figure for the cost of the Archers - per minuteÌý
Depends whose minute is being charged, Brian Aldridge or Ed Grundy.
I would like to contribute further, alphabet, but I’m afraid that I am unable to due to the obtuse and disruptive intervention of the normal suspect.
, in reply to message 13.
Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Tuesday, 5th February 2013
In reply to Seveek:
I would like to contribute further, alphabet, but I’m afraid that I am unable to due to the obtuse and disruptive intervention of the normal suspect.Ìý
ROFLMAO
Seveek why are you so unhappy when someone tries to help you understand something correctly?
I even went to the trouble of emailing Rajar to confirm that Keri of the Ö÷²¥´óÐã indeed does understand correctly the figures you wrongly claim he misstates.
And you have yet to name and cite the "Expert Consultant" whom you claim agrees with you. Is he perhaps an imaginary friend?
, in reply to message 14.
Posted by Leaping Badger (U3587940) on Wednesday, 6th February 2013
I think I'm right in saying that Seveek is the person who claimed to have worked out authoritative profit-and-loss accounts for Brookfield, a fictional farm.
'Ö'
‘I think I'm right in saying that Seveek is the person who claimed to have worked out authoritative profit-and-loss accounts for Brookfield, a fictional farm’.
No, Leaping, you are not right. I claimed no authoritative ability at all. I specifically said that my figures were an Aunt Sally for discussion and re-modelling, hopefully with others (AC’s) input. But all that came was criticism and nitpicking by people who chose not to view it thus.
My figures were based on industry standards and were valid.
So no claim at all. Thank you for your input,
, in reply to message 16.
Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Wednesday, 6th February 2013
No, Leaping, you are not right. I claimed no authoritative ability at all. I specifically said that my figures were an Aunt Sally for discussion and re-modelling, hopefully with others (AC’s) input. But all that came was criticism and nitpicking by people who chose not to view it thus.Ìý
I remember them. IIRC I was supportive of your efforts, which basically said BroF was doing fine?
Would be interesting to look back if you know where that are.
Welcome to the Archers Messageboard.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
This messageboard is now closed.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Ö÷²¥´óÐã © 2014 The Ö÷²¥´óÐã is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.