Cherokee County

Do you want figures from the 2020 Decennial Census or the latest American Community Survey 5-year estimates (2019–2023)? I can deliver both, but the ACS provides the most current breakdowns for age, race/ethnicity, and households.

Cherokee County, Alabama snapshot (estimates)

• Population and density: ~26,000 residents; roughly 45–50 people per square mile (low rural density). Residents cluster around Centre, Cedar Bluff, and Leesburg, with many sparsely populated areas.
• Estimated email users: 17,000–19,000 residents use email. Method: rural adult internet adoption ~80–85%; email is used by the vast majority of internet users; county’s older age mix slightly lowers overall penetration.
• Age distribution of email users:
  • 13–17: ~5–7%
  • 18–34: ~20–25%
  • 35–64: ~45–50%
  • 65+: ~20–25% (lower adoption than younger groups but still substantial)
• Gender split: Near parity. The county’s slight female majority and minimal gender gap in email usage yield roughly 50–50 among users.
• Digital access trends and connectivity:
  • Broadband adoption below the U.S. average, typical of rural Alabama; fixed high‑speed options are strongest in towns, with slower DSL, fixed wireless, or satellite in outlying areas.
  • Smartphone‑only internet access is a meaningful minority, influencing how email is checked (mobile-first).
  • Public/library Wi‑Fi and school networks remain important access points.
  • Ongoing state/federal investments are expanding fiber and 5G coverage, but terrain and last‑mile distances still create patchy service in some pockets.

Below is a county-level snapshot synthesized from census/population counts, rural Southeast mobile adoption benchmarks, and recent infrastructure funding/program activity. Figures are estimates; ranges reflect uncertainty in county-level measurement.

Quick profile

• Population: ~26,000 residents; ~10,000–11,000 households; older-than-state age profile; largely rural.
• Terrain/setting: Lake- and ridge-dominated topography (Weiss Lake, Lookout Mountain foothills), with coverage concentrated along US-411/AL-9 corridors and in Centre/Cedar Bluff/Leesburg.

Estimated mobile user base (any mobile phone)

• Unique mobile phone users: ~21,000–23,000 (≈83–90% of residents).
• Smartphone users: ~16,000–18,500 (≈62–71% of residents; ≈75–82% of adults).
• Multi-line households: ~55–60% of households maintain 2+ active lines.
• Mobile-only internet households (no home wireline broadband): ~22–28% of households (≈2,200–3,000), higher than the Alabama average.

Demographic usage patterns (how Cherokee County differs from Alabama overall)

• Age
  • 65+ share is higher than the state average; smartphone adoption among seniors is lower (roughly 55–65% vs a higher statewide rate), and voice/text remain comparatively important.
  • Teens/young adults mirror statewide high smartphone penetration (>90%), but coverage gaps on rural bus routes and around the lake create more offline zones than in most Alabama counties.
• Income and plan type
  • Lower median household income than the state average correlates with higher prepaid usage and price-sensitive data plans; prepaid and budget MVNO plans likely 5–10 percentage points more common than statewide.
  • Longer handset replacement cycles; Android share is higher than the Alabama average.
• Work/education
  • More residents rely on mobile hotspots for homework, telehealth, and occasional remote work due to patchy wireline options, leading to higher “mobile-as-primary” data use than the state average.
• Race/ethnicity
  • A largely White, rural population with smaller Black and Hispanic communities; in those smaller groups, mobile-only and prepaid usage tends to be above county averages, mirroring broader rural patterns.

Digital infrastructure and performance

• Coverage
  • 4G LTE is broadly available in towns and along main corridors; dead zones persist in sparsely populated valleys/ridges and some shoreline pockets around Weiss Lake.
  • 5G low-band is present near Centre and along primary highways; mid-band 5G capacity is limited and spotty compared with metro Alabama, keeping typical 5G speeds closer to enhanced-LTE levels outside town centers.
• Capacity and speeds
  • Typical LTE speeds: ~5–30 Mbps in rural stretches; 50–100+ Mbps near towns/towers.
  • 5G low-band: ~30–100 Mbps; mid-band (where available): 100–300+ Mbps but with limited footprint.
  • Seasonal congestion: noticeable weekend/holiday slowdowns driven by lake tourism and events—more pronounced than statewide.
• Towers and backhaul
  • Macro sites are clustered along US-411/AL-9 and near population centers; fewer small cells than urban Alabama.
  • Backhaul constraints on some rural sites mean higher latency and evening slowdowns versus state averages.
• Wireline and fixed wireless
  • Mixed legacy DSL and cable in/near Centre; pockets of fiber in limited areas; extensive outlying areas rely on fixed wireless or satellite.
  • 5G home internet is available in and near towns and along corridors, but coverage is not countywide; adoption is higher than statewide in places lacking cable/fiber.
• Public safety and resilience
  • FirstNet buildouts have improved coverage for first responders on main corridors, but ridge/valley shadows remain; residents use signal boosters more than average.

Notable trends that differ from Alabama overall

• Higher dependence on mobile as primary internet: Mobile-only households are materially above the state average, reflecting limited wireline options.
• More prepaid and budget plans: Price sensitivity and coverage variability drive prepaid/MVNO adoption above statewide rates.
• Older user base: Lower senior smartphone adoption and a greater share of voice/SMS usage than the state average.
• Slower 5G rollout/capacity: Less mid-band 5G and fewer small cells than metro counties; coverage-first builds dominate.
• Seasonal demand spikes: Tourism-driven surges around Weiss Lake create atypical congestion patterns compared with most Alabama counties.
• Cross-border dynamics: Proximity to the Georgia line introduces more roaming/edge-of-cell scenarios than interior counties.

Sizing assumptions (for transparency)

• Population and household counts based on recent census estimates for a rural Alabama county of ~26k residents.
• Adoption rates derived from Pew/NTIA rural-Southeast benchmarks blended with Alabama-specific patterns: adult smartphone adoption in rural counties ~75–82%; seniors ~55–65%; teens >90%.
• Mobile-only household share in rural Alabama commonly exceeds state averages by several points; here estimated at ~22–28% vs a mid-teens statewide rate.

Below is a concise, best-available estimate for social media usage in Cherokee County, Alabama. Figures use 2023–2024 Pew Research Center and U.S. Census patterns, localized to a rural AL county profile; treat them as directional ranges rather than official counts.

Snapshot

• Population: ~26K residents
• Estimated social media users: ~15K–18K (≈65–75% of all residents; ≈80–90% of those age 13+)

Most-used platforms among adults (estimated share of adults)

• YouTube: 72–78%
• Facebook: 68–75%
• Facebook Messenger: 58–65%
• Instagram: 30–38%
• TikTok: 25–33% (heavier under 35)
• Pinterest: 25–32% (skews female)
• Snapchat: 18–25% (mostly teens/20s)
• X (Twitter): 12–18%
• LinkedIn: 12–16% (professional niches)
• Reddit: 10–16%
• WhatsApp: 15–22% (below national average)
• Nextdoor: 5–10% (limited footprint)

Age mix of local social media users (share of users)

• 13–17: 8–10% (YouTube, TikTok, Snapchat; Facebook lower)
• 18–29: 18–22% (IG, TikTok, Snapchat; YouTube very high)
• 30–49: 32–36% (Facebook, YouTube, Instagram; Marketplace heavy)
• 50–64: 22–26% (Facebook, YouTube; some Pinterest)
• 65+: 14–18% (Facebook dominant; YouTube for news/how‑to)

Gender breakdown of users

• Female: ~52–55% of local users (higher use of Facebook, Pinterest, local groups, Marketplace)
• Male: ~45–48% (higher use of YouTube; some Reddit; outdoors/DIY content)

Behavioral trends (what performs and how people use platforms)

• Facebook is the community hub: local news, school and high‑school sports, church events, buy/sell/trade and yard‑sale groups, lost/found pets, severe‑weather and road updates.
• Marketplace and Groups drive commerce: heavy use for vehicles, tools, boats, outdoor gear; price-sensitive, “meet local” preference.
• Video wins: short vertical clips (Reels/TikTok) and simple phone videos outperform text-only posts; YouTube used for how‑to, fishing/boating, DIY, sermon streams.
• Local lifestyle content over-indexes: Weiss Lake fishing/boating, hunting seasons, festivals, school activities; photos with people recognizable to the community get strong engagement.
• Timing: engagement peaks evenings (about 7–9 pm CT) and weekends; secondary bump around lunch on weekdays.
• Messaging: Facebook Messenger is the default for inquiries and customer service; responses within a few hours improve conversion.
• Cross-posting works: the same short video performs on Facebook Reels and Instagram; TikTok helps reach under‑35.
• Trust and word‑of‑mouth: recommendations in local groups and from known community pages matter more than brand pages alone.

Notes

• These are modeled estimates using county population and rural‑South usage patterns from recent national surveys; precise, county‑level platform statistics are not publicly reported.