YOU'D think that six million people couldn't be wrong. But, ha, ha, they are. And it's a fact that I was smugly thrilled to learn. As the long-running BBC Radio Four series The Archers is the second most popular thing on the channel after news programmes, BBC chiefs had assumed that it would be the ideal place to woo new listeners.

They hoped to copy the way that EastEnders, Coronation Street and Brookside have lured millions of TV viewers. But, after playing the farming soap to people who had never heard it before, they had to admit defeat. People were baffled - unable to tell one character from another and work out who is related to whom.

And I can't say I'm in the least surprised. Because, after more than a decade spent having to listen while my husband - a fan since birth - tunes in, I've only in the past year worked out the whos, whats, whens and whys.

Confusing isn't the word. There's Elizabeth, who's married to Nigel, who had a "thing" with her widowed sister Shula who also had a fling with the local doctor (her best friend's bloke) and is now married to the local vet - I forget his name.

And Nigel almost had an affair with the local squire's widow Caroline who, I think, dated another local vet who was also the vicar. Her purpose I can't quite fathom - she's supposed to be some sort of femme fatale yet all she does is twitter on about her boss - an old bloke called "Mr Woolly."

I could go on, but to stop readers turning over, I won't.

You could argue that all long-running soaps have complex pasts (look at the Mike Baldwin/Deirdre Rachid/Ken Barlow saga in Coronation Street), so why is The Archers so hard to connect with?

For a start, there's all the old characters from years back whose names seem to be dredged up far too often. Like Grace and Dan and Walter whose places in the hierarchy I haven't a clue about. They could be serial killers for all I know, although people seem to speak kindly about them.

You don't hear the characters in Corrie banging on about Ena Sharples or the Queen Vic regulars harping on about Dirty Den and Arthur Fowler.

There's the names - Phil and Jill (couldn't they have varied this couple's names slightly?), Clarrie and Eddie, Shula and Kenton (has anyone before or since ever been called either of those names?) and the children, Pip and Pop (or something like that). Confused? You would be if you listened.

And, apparently, the programme was seen as too sophisticated for many. I'd agree - and that's another reason it's a turn-off.

It's supposed to be "an everyday story of country folk." I grew up in a farming community and it was nothing like that. For example, almost the entire village - including stroppy teenagers - is taking part in an opera.

If a poster had gone up in our village asking for volunteers to sing in The Mikado, there may have been one or two takers from the haughty executive estate, but certainly no farmers, and definitely no teenagers.

Sadly, we were more interested in defacing the bus shelter (and I know in reality, that with most children, that would still be the case).

It has been proved that The Archers is not easy to get into. And when you do eventually get in - unlike most soaps - it's easy to get out of. If my husband stopped listening, it's not something I'd miss.

Although I have heard rumours that snooty Elizabeth is about to meet her maker.

After listening to her toffee-nosed whine all these years, I must tune in for that...