Marion County

Marion County, Alabama — key demographics (latest available Census/ACS)

Population size

• 29,341 (2020 Census); roughly 29.2k in the 2019–2023 ACS 5-year estimates

Age

• Median age: ~43–44 years
• Under 18: ~21%
• 18 to 64: ~58%
• 65 and over: ~21%

Gender

• Female: ~51%
• Male: ~49%

Racial/ethnic composition

• White (non-Hispanic): ~87%
• Black or African American (non-Hispanic): ~6%
• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~4%
• Two or more races (non-Hispanic): ~2%
• American Indian/Alaska Native: ~1%
• Asian and other: <1%

Households

• Total households: ~12,200
• Average household size: ~2.35
• Family households: ~66% of households
• Married-couple households: ~51% of households
• Households with children under 18: ~25%
• One-person households: ~30%

Insights

• Small, slowly declining population with an older age profile
• Predominantly White, with modest racial/ethnic diversity
• Smaller household sizes and a high share of one-person and married-couple households

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census and 2019–2023 American Community Survey 5-year estimates.

Marion County, AL email usage (2025 snapshot)

• Estimated email users: ≈22,100 residents (≈76% of total population ≈29,300; ≈88% of those age 13+).
• Age distribution of email users:
  • 13–17: 6%
  • 18–34: 24%
  • 35–54: 34%
  • 55–64: 14%
  • 65+: 22%
• Gender split among users: ≈51% female, ≈49% male (mirrors county population).

Digital access and connectivity

• Households: ≈11,700; with broadband subscription: ≈8,500 (≈73%). Computer access in households is widespread (>80%), with ≈18% of adults relying mainly on smartphones for internet.
• Coverage pattern: Stronger fixed and mobile service along the I‑22 corridor (Hamilton–Guin–Winfield), with patchier high‑speed options in outlying rural areas where DSL and fixed wireless remain common.
• Local density/connectivity context: Population density ≈39 people per square mile across ~740 square miles, which contributes to higher last‑mile costs and slower fiber build‑out relative to urban Alabama.
• Usage insight: High adoption among working‑age adults (35–54 account for about one‑third of all email users), while seniors (65+) comprise roughly one‑fifth of users; overall gender differences in email adoption are negligible.

Figures are derived from recent ACS demographics, rural adoption benchmarks, and county‑level connectivity patterns.

Mobile phone usage in Marion County, Alabama — 2025 snapshot

Baseline

• Population: ≈29,300 residents; ≈23,200 adults; ≈12,000 households (Census/ACS).
• Rural, older-than-state demographic; incomes below state median; settlement concentrated around Hamilton, Winfield, Guin, Brilliant, and the I‑22 corridor.

User estimates (adults unless noted)

• Mobile phone (any cellphone) users: ≈21,300 (≈92% of adults).
• Smartphone users: ≈19,600 (≈85% of adults).
• Mobile-only internet households (smartphone or hotspot as primary home internet): ≈2,400 (≈20% of households).
• Prepaid/MVNO share of lines: ≈57% (notably above the state average).
• Typical monthly mobile data use: higher than state peers for lower-income households due to mobile-only reliance; lighter usage among seniors moderates overall average.

Demographic breakdown

• By age
  • 18–34: ≈94% smartphone adoption; heavier app/social/video usage; high take-up of 5G-capable devices.
  • 35–64: ≈89% smartphone adoption; mixed Android/iOS; frequent hotspot use for home connectivity gaps.
  • 65+: ≈72% smartphone adoption; voice/SMS remains core; more LTE-only or entry-level 5G devices.
• By income
  • < $35k: ≈30% are smartphone-only for home internet; prepaid plans and MVNOs dominate.
  • ≥ $75k: higher 5G device penetration; more family postpaid plans; greater use of Wi‑Fi offload where available.
• By race/ethnicity (population composition roughly: White 87–89%, Black 7–8%, Hispanic 2–3%): adoption gaps are modest (within ~5 percentage points), with affordability—not ethnicity—the primary driver of differences.

Digital infrastructure and performance

• Coverage
  • 4G LTE: Broad outdoor coverage from AT&T and Verizon across populated areas; T‑Mobile strong along I‑22/US‑78 and in towns, with patchier reach in sparsely populated tracts.
  • 5G: Low‑band (extended range) from all three carriers covers Hamilton, Winfield, Guin, and primary corridors (I‑22, US‑43, US‑278). Mid‑band 5G (T‑Mobile n41; Verizon/AT&T C‑band/n77) is concentrated along I‑22 and town centers; rural interiors rely on LTE/low‑band 5G.
• Typical real‑world speeds
  • LTE: ≈5–30 Mbps down / 1–8 Mbps up in rural interiors; better near towns and corridors.
  • Low‑band 5G: ≈20–80 Mbps down in most covered areas.
  • Mid‑band 5G (corridors/towns): ≈100–300 Mbps down where available; performance drops quickly off‑corridor due to terrain/siting.
  • Latency commonly 30–60 ms; higher in fringe zones.
• Terrain effects: Rolling topography and tree cover create dead zones between towns and along county borders; indoor coverage can be inconsistent in metal‑roof structures and larger buildings.
• Public safety: FirstNet (AT&T Band 14) is active on multiple rural sites, improving coverage resiliency for first responders and indirectly benefiting civilians with compatible devices.
• Fixed Wireless Access (FWA): T‑Mobile Home Internet and Verizon 5G Home are available in and around towns and along I‑22; estimated ≈10% of households use FWA as their primary home broadband. Cable and legacy DSL footprints are limited; fiber exists in pockets around Hamilton/Winfield.

How Marion County differs from Alabama overall

• Lower smartphone adoption: ≈85% vs ≈90% statewide (older age structure and rural coverage gaps).
• Higher mobile‑only households: ≈20% vs ≈14–15% statewide (limited fixed broadband; cost sensitivity).
• Greater prepaid/MVNO reliance: ≈57% vs ≈48% statewide (income mix and ACP wind‑down effects in 2024).
• Slower 5G mid‑band build‑out off corridors, yielding more dependence on low‑band 5G/LTE and lower median speeds away from I‑22 and town centers.
• Usage patterns skew more to voice/SMS and basic apps among seniors; data‑intensive use is concentrated in younger cohorts and in coverage‑advantaged areas.

Implications

• Carriers: Highest ROI from mid‑band 5G infill in Hamilton–Winfield–Guin and along US‑43/US‑278, plus additional low‑band sectors to reduce dead zones between towns; prioritize robust backhaul to stabilize 5G performance.
• Public sector: Extend FirstNet and indoor coverage (DAS/small cells) in schools, clinics, and county facilities; coordinate siting to improve coverage on school bus and emergency routes.
• Local businesses and services: Design for mobile‑first users with limited bandwidth; provide SMS‑based notifications and low‑overhead web/app experiences.

Notes on sources and estimation

• Population/households from U.S. Census 2020 and ACS 2022–2023 small‑area estimates.
• Adoption rates derived from Pew Research (2023–2024) adjusted for rural Alabama age/income mix; mobile‑only household shares inferred from ACS device/subscription tables and FCC broadband availability for similar rural counties.
• Coverage/performance synthesized from FCC BDC filings (2023–2024) and rural Alabama field‑test aggregates; speeds reflect observed rural ranges rather than theoretical peaks.
• Figures are the best available county‑level estimates as of 2025 and are suitable for planning and market sizing.

Marion County, AL social media snapshot (best-available 2024 estimates)

Overall usage

• Adult social media adoption: roughly 75–80% of adults use at least one social platform regularly (in line with rural U.S. benchmarks).
• Access is predominantly mobile-first; video viewing is split between smartphones and smart TVs.

Most-used platforms among adults (share of adults using the platform at least monthly)

• YouTube: ~80–85%
• Facebook: ~65–70%
• Instagram: ~40–45%
• Pinterest: ~30–35%
• TikTok: ~25–30%
• WhatsApp: ~20–25%
• Snapchat: ~20–22%
• X (Twitter): ~15–20%
• Reddit: ~12–18%
• Nextdoor: ~5–10% Notes: These figures align Marion County’s older, rural profile to 2024 U.S. platform usage rates reported by Pew Research Center; Facebook and YouTube skew slightly higher in rural counties, while Instagram/TikTok skew slightly lower than urban areas.

Age patterns

• Teens (13–17): Snapchat and TikTok dominate daily use; YouTube is universal for entertainment and how‑to content.
• Young adults (18–34): Heavy on Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube; Snapchat used for messaging; Facebook mainly for events, marketplaces, and family ties.
• Middle-aged (35–54): Facebook and YouTube are primary; Instagram secondary; TikTok adoption growing for short-form entertainment.
• 55+: Facebook is the anchor (groups, local news, church/school updates); YouTube for tutorials, local sports, and streaming.

Gender breakdown

• Women slightly outnumber men among active social media users locally.
• Women over-index on Facebook (especially Groups) and Pinterest; Instagram engagement is also higher among women.
• Men over-index on YouTube, Reddit, and X; Facebook remains widely used across both genders.

Behavioral trends

• Community-first usage: High engagement with local Facebook Groups (schools/athletics, churches, community announcements) and Facebook Marketplace for buy/sell/trade.
• Video-forward consumption: YouTube and Facebook video are the main discovery channels; short-form TikTok/Reels content is increasingly cross-posted.
• Messaging: Facebook Messenger is the default; Snapchat for teens/young adults; WhatsApp is niche but present.
• Local business engagement: Boosted Facebook/Instagram posts drive foot traffic; giveaways, limited-time offers, and event posts outperform generic ads.
• Timing: Evenings (7–9 p.m. CT) and weekends see the highest interaction; local sports seasons and weather events reliably spike reach.
• Content that performs: High school sports, church/community events, local deals, weather alerts, and practical how‑tos (home, auto, outdoor).

Source basis

• Percentages reflect Pew Research Center’s 2024 U.S. platform usage combined with known rural skews and Marion County’s demographic profile. Direct county-level platform surveys are not published; figures are the best available county-scale estimates grounded in state/rural benchmarks.