> 80,508 people

Not 81,000 as it says in the title. I know I'm being nitpicky, but I wouldn't round up to 81k. Surely the 'important number' in this case is 80, so you would round down to that. Then let the reader pleasantly discover you had interviewed ~500 more than you stated.

It's funny to me when someone does this sort of minor hyperbole that's verging on lying - you have to wonder what is going on.