Read all about where YOU live!

pickledpink

The Acorn chart is actually very accurate. Obviously, it doesn't represent each and every person living in that area - but it gives a very good general guideline as to the type of person who lives there.

They do go by facts and figures.

Market research is a very lucrative field, and companies rely upon the Acorn chart so as to target the correct market.

For example, many companies will do promotions and send out free offers to householders. They're not going to waste hundreds of thousands on sending out free taster gifts to the wrong market. Things such as samples of Malt Wkisky, Cigars, the Times Newspaper, Skiing discount vouchers etc would not be sent out to an area where unemployment is VERY high, and most people are living on Benefits in council estates.

So Acorn is actually taken very seriously.

Davesnave

pickledpink wrote: »

So Acorn is actually taken very seriously.

Gosh! Sorry I took the p!ss out of it then. I'm clearly better off than I thought. {lights cigar, pours another malt and sits back to do Times crossword}

Of course, I should have remembered my Bible lessons: 'And to those that hath, it shall be given.'

Amen.

pickledpink

Davesnave wrote: »

Gosh! Sorry I took the p!ss out of it then. I'm clearly better off than I thought. {lights cigar, pours another malt and sits back to do Times crossword}

Of course, I should have remembered my Bible lessons: 'And to those that hath, it shall be given.'

Amen.

That's actually very true!

Rich people - and I'm talking RICH (not just comfortable) - often get freebies such as expensive designer clothes, free holidays on private islands like Necker, lifts in private executive jets, free loans of a luxury yachts in the Med, long stays in luxury villas in Tuscany, meals 'on the house' in exclusive restaurants............all FREE if you're rich! If you're skint - forget it!

On a more normal level, people who are just comfortable will get the free upgrades in travel, hotels etc. They'll also get the free taster gifts sent to them from places such as Harrods etc..........

So it does seem (unfairly or not) the more you have the more you get.

lostinrates

Interestingly I get a slightly different rsult using the first half of postcode instead of th whole thing, so its obviously meant to be quite finely tuned.

I'd say the first half of the postcode summary is fairly accurate (27) but the whole postcode one (6) is significantly off the mark for my village!

Davesnave

To be serious for a moment, I identify very strongly with the Type 6 that Rikki had affinity problems with. That's why I'm moving. Once the constraints of work and kids are removed, one gravitates naturally to where there are like-minded individuals.

Factors like school catchments and avoiding manic hours of commuting skew choices somewhat in early middle age. People are, therefore, not exactly where they might otherwise choose to be, but I'd guess that most conform, at least outwardly, to the norms in their community.

Kenny4315

Have satellite TVVery low

That's because it's a conservation area !!!!

There goes the statistical analysis straight out of the window.

Comparable with Richmond-on-Thames and St Albans, they're sh'# holes !!! Cheeky lot.

Jadoube

hethmar wrote: »

Point being that they go by the borough rather than the district - hence if your doss hole of a street is actually under a generally expensive borough your sun reading/non reading neighbours can become Guardian subscribers

Not true. The Acorn code goes by FULL 8 character postcode - areas on average of 15 houses - which is why moving from one street to another can mean you're in a different type of neighbourhood. Like real life really.

Jadoube

lostinrates wrote: »

Interestingly I get a slightly different rsult using the first half of postcode instead of th whole thing, so its obviously meant to be quite finely tuned.

I'd say the first half of the postcode summary is fairly accurate (27) but the whole postcode one (6) is significantly off the mark for my village!

It is more usual for the partial postcode bit to be drastically wrong - a partial postcode is not supposed to give the right answer.

After you put in a partial postcode you will find the site tells you which full postcode it has used as a default to correct for you not having put in a full postcode. (At least it did so before the recent redesign of the UMS site.)

The default is usually the 'centre' of the partial postcode. Everywhere is different but it is more typical for the default to give central areas of town. These are less upmarket than the 'nice' suburbs further out in the partial postcode.

The result is that (some types of) people get offended and send emails to UMS complaining the "code is wrong" and have to have it explained to them that it was because they fed in partial data. :rolleyes:

robin_banks

Jadoube wrote: »

Not true. The Acorn code goes by FULL 8 character postcode - areas on average of 15 houses - which is why moving from one street to another can mean you're in a different type of neighbourhood. Like real life really.

Mine is unusual for central(ish) London in that there are only 3-4 residential properties with our post code (light industrial/warehouses in the main), the rest are shops, with a couple of cafes and a pub, neither I nor my neighbours remotely fit the profile quoted.

lostinrates

Jadoube wrote: »

It is more usual for the partial postcode bit to be drastically wrong - a partial postcode is not supposed to give the right answer.

After you put in a partial postcode you will find the site tells you which full postcode it has used as a default to correct for you not having put in a full postcode. (At least it did so before the recent redesign of the UMS site.)

The default is usually the 'centre' of the partial postcode. Everywhere is different but it is more typical for the default to give central areas of town. These are less upmarket than the 'nice' suburbs further out in the partial postcode.

The result is that (some types of) people get offended and send emails to UMS complaining the "code is wrong" and have to have it explained to them that it was because they fed in partial data. :rolleyes:

Yes, thats what I would have thought, hnce my surprise. Thing is, we are a fairly small community- I don't know anyones personal financial details obviously, but I do know that only one house has satalite (in fact our neighbours to one direction have no tv, the other direction keep saying they must sort out freeview.), only two have school age children (two more have univeristy age children). I'd say the income thing works out about right, on mean-average, but that its deceptive, becuase I'd guess that there is only one house that is average, a few under average and a few over average. While we are a rural community in my full postcode no one is a 'agricultural worker'. In considering the partial postcode with the average over a very much wider area of the partial postcode I'd feel the means were probably more accurate than the smaller sample group of the full postcode, maybe someone in another house might fel differnt. I'm certainly not disgruntld about it though,