Madison County

Key demographics – Madison County, Arkansas

Population

• 16,521 (2020 Census); up 5.1% from 15,717 in 2010

Age

• Median age: 41.6 years
• Under 18: 24%
• 18–64: 57%
• 65 and over: 19%

Gender

• Male: 50.3%
• Female: 49.7%

Race and ethnicity (shares of total population)

• Non-Hispanic White: 86%
• Hispanic or Latino (any race): 7%
• Two or more races (non-Hispanic): 4%
• American Indian/Alaska Native (non-Hispanic): 1.5%
• Black or African American (non-Hispanic): 0.4%
• Asian (non-Hispanic): 0.4%
• Other (non-Hispanic): 0.7%

Households

• Total households: ~6,300
• Average household size: 2.6 persons
• Family households: 68% of households
• Married-couple households: ~53% of households
• One-person households: ~26%
• Households with children under 18: ~29%

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

Madison County, Arkansas snapshot (2024):

• Population 16,800 across ~837 sq mi (20 people/sq mi), largely rural Ozark terrain that increases last‑mile costs and slows upgrades.
• Estimated email users: ~11,000–12,000 (≈65–70% of residents; ≈85–90% of connected adults).

Age distribution among email users (estimated):

• 13–17: ~6% (≈700)
• 18–34: ~22% (≈2,400)
• 35–64: ~49% (≈5,500)
• 65+: ~23% (≈2,600) Adoption is highest 35–64; seniors trail but are steadily increasing as telehealth and banking move online.

Gender split:

• Roughly even: male ~50–51%, female ~49–50% of email users (minimal gender gap in adoption).

Digital access and connectivity:

• Households with a computer: ~82–86%.
• Home broadband subscription: ~70–75%; no home internet: ~18–20%; smartphone‑only access: ~12–15%.
• Fiber availability is expanding (regional co‑ops/ISPs), lifting speeds along key corridors; gaps persist on sparsely populated roads and hollows.
• Mobile coverage is adequate on highways but inconsistent in valleys; residents outside Huntsville and major routes rely more on cellular and satellite.

Insight: Email penetration tracks broadband availability; continued fiber buildouts and affordability programs are the main levers to raise senior adoption and reduce the smartphone‑only segment.

Mobile phone usage in Madison County, Arkansas — 2024 snapshot

Headline estimates

• Population baseline: approximately 16,800 residents; about 12,900 are age 18+.
• Residents with a mobile phone (any type): about 13,400 people (80–82% of the total population).
• Smartphone users: roughly 12,000–12,500 residents (72–75% of total; 84–87% of adults).
• Smartphone-only internet households (no home broadband): approximately 1,400–1,700 households, or 22–27% of the county’s roughly 6,300–6,600 households.

How Madison County differs from Arkansas statewide

• Higher smartphone-only reliance: Share of households relying solely on mobile data is several points higher than the Arkansas average (county ~22–27% vs state ~18–22%), driven by limited wired broadband options outside Huntsville and the US‑412 corridor.
• Slightly lower adult smartphone adoption: County adult adoption sits in the mid‑80s percent, a few points below the statewide norm, reflecting an older age mix and lower median incomes.
• More LTE, less mid-band 5G: Day‑to‑day use leans more on LTE and low‑band 5G than in urban Arkansas, where mid‑band 5G is common; this keeps typical speeds lower and more variable.
• Higher prepaid share: Prepaid plans account for an estimated one‑third of active lines in the county, above the statewide share, reflecting price sensitivity and coverage testing across carriers.
• Device mix: Android share is higher than the state average (roughly 65–70% Android, 30–35% iOS), consistent with rural price tiers.

Demographic breakdown of mobile use

• Age
  • 18–34: highest adoption; about 90–95% own smartphones. Estimated 3,000–3,300 users.
  • 35–64: 85–90% smartphone ownership. Estimated 5,000–5,500 users.
  • 65+: 60–65% smartphone ownership. Estimated 1,600–1,900 users.
  • Teens (12–17): about 85–90% have smartphones; ~1,100–1,300 users. Younger children often use shared family devices.
• Income and plan type
  • Under $35k household income: most likely to be smartphone‑only for home internet (around one‑third of these households).
  • $35k–$75k: smartphone‑only nearer one‑fifth.
  • Over $75k: smartphone‑only closer to one in ten.
  • Prepaid adoption strongest in lower‑income and outlying communities; postpaid dominates in and around Huntsville.
• Race/ethnicity
  • The county is predominantly White; small Hispanic/Latino communities show above‑average smartphone‑only reliance and higher use of messaging apps and Wi‑Fi calling to manage coverage and costs.
• Work and commute patterns
  • Daytime demand and reliable coverage are most critical along US‑412 and AR‑23 (commutes toward Washington/Benton counties), with evening peaks in Huntsville and nearby communities.

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• Coverage footprint
  • AT&T and Verizon: broad LTE and low‑band 5G population coverage, strongest along US‑412, AR‑23, and in Huntsville; most dead zones occur in wooded hollows and ridge-shadowed valleys in the Boston Mountains.
  • T‑Mobile: solid coverage in population centers and along US‑412; patchier in the most rugged terrain compared with AT&T/Verizon.
• 5G specifics
  • Low‑band 5G covers a majority of residents but delivers LTE‑like reliability and modest speed boosts.
  • Mid‑band 5G is concentrated near Huntsville and the US‑412 corridor; large rural tracts remain LTE‑first.
  • No meaningful mmWave deployment.
• Typical real‑world speeds (outdoor, handheld)
  • LTE: 5–25 Mbps down, 2–8 Mbps up in valleys and timbered areas; better along open corridors.
  • Low‑band 5G: 20–80 Mbps down, 5–15 Mbps up where signal quality is strong; often falls back to LTE indoors and in folds of terrain.
• Capacity and resilience
  • Sites are co‑located along highways and on ridge‑top leases; microwave backhaul remains common off the US‑412 fiber routes, constraining peak throughput.
  • New FirstNet/AT&T coverage since late‑2010s improved public‑safety reliability, but prolonged power outages can still degrade rural sectors after backup runtimes expire.
• Indoor service
  • Metal‑roof construction and terrain shadows make Wi‑Fi calling and in‑home signal boosters notably more common than the state average.
• Complementary fixed networks
  • Fiber has expanded but remains geographically limited outside central corridors and cooperative buildouts; DSL and fixed wireless persist in outlying areas. This scarcity of wired capacity drives the county’s higher smartphone‑only rate.

Usage patterns and behaviors

• Voice and text reliability are prioritized over peak data speeds; residents frequently enable Wi‑Fi calling at home and work.
• Video streaming on mobile is often constrained to lower resolutions in fringe areas; offline downloads and messaging apps with low‑bandwidth modes see above‑average use.
• Multi‑SIM/eSIM usage is modest but growing among field workers who toggle between carriers to fill coverage gaps.

Key takeaways

• Expect about 12–12.5 thousand smartphone users in Madison County, with overall mobile phone use around 13.4 thousand residents.
• Mobile connectivity is dependable along major corridors and in Huntsville, but terrain limits consistency; LTE remains the workhorse.
• Compared with Arkansas overall, Madison County relies more on smartphones as the primary internet connection, has fewer mid‑band 5G zones, exhibits a higher prepaid share, and shows slightly lower adoption among seniors due to coverage and cost dynamics.

Social media usage in Madison County, Arkansas (2025)

Scope and method note: Figures below are modeled local estimates derived by applying Pew Research Center’s 2024 U.S. social platform adoption rates (with rural adjustments) to Madison County’s 2023 age structure and population from the U.S. Census Bureau (ACS). Numbers are rounded and intended as best-available local estimates.

Key user stats

• Population base: ~16,800 residents (2023 ACS)
• Estimated social media users: ~11,900 people
  • ≈71% of all residents
  • ≈82% of residents age 13+
• Device context: Predominantly mobile-first usage; video consumption is significant but shaped by rural connectivity constraints

Age groups (share of local social media users)

• 13–17: ~9%
• 18–29: ~21%
• 30–49: ~38%
• 50–64: ~20%
• 65+: ~12%

Gender breakdown (share of local social media users)

• Female: ~51%
• Male: ~49%

Most-used platforms in Madison County (estimated share of residents age 13+ who use each)

• YouTube: ~78%
• Facebook: ~66%
• Instagram: ~38%
• TikTok: ~31%
• Pinterest: ~28%
• Snapchat: ~24%
• X (Twitter): ~18%
• WhatsApp: ~17%
• Reddit: ~14%
• LinkedIn: ~12%

Behavioral trends and local patterns

• Facebook as the hub: Heavy reliance on Facebook Groups and Marketplace for school updates, local government notices, churches, yard sales, events, lost-and-found, and buy/sell/trade. Local businesses lean on Pages and Groups over standalone websites.
• Video-first, practical content: YouTube dominates for how-to, repairs, homesteading, outdoors, farming, and local sports highlights. Short-form video via Reels/TikTok is strongest under age 35 and during evenings.
• Messaging over calling: Messenger and Snapchat are primary for day-to-day communication among teens and young adults; SMS remains common across ages.
• Community-centric tone: Family, faith, hunting/fishing, high school sports, agriculture, and local entrepreneurship perform best. Posts with clear utility (weather, road closures, school schedules) see outsized engagement.
• Time-of-day peaks: Evenings (roughly 7–10 pm) and weekend mornings show the highest activity; mid-day weekday spikes align with school lunch and work breaks.
• Commerce and discovery: Facebook Marketplace is a primary local channel for secondhand goods; Instagram is used by boutiques, crafts, and food trucks; TikTok is emerging for makers and seasonal events.
• Privacy and format choices: Teens favor ephemeral/private channels (Snapchat, Instagram DMs); older users are more comfortable with public Facebook posts and group discussions.
• Cross-posting: Local organizations often cross-post identical content to Facebook and Instagram; short video repurposing between Reels and TikTok is common.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (2023) for population and age structure; Pew Research Center (2024) Social Media Use and platform reach for U.S. adults, with rural adjustments applied to estimate county-level adoption.