Fresno County

Key demographics for Fresno County, California (U.S. Census Bureau, 2023 ACS 1-year unless noted):

• Population size: ~1.01 million (2023 estimate)
• Age:
  • Median age: ~32.5 years
  • Under 18: ~28%
  • 65 and over: ~13%
• Gender:
  • Female: ~50%
  • Male: ~50%
• Racial/ethnic composition:
  • Hispanic/Latino (of any race): ~55%
  • White, non-Hispanic: ~28%
  • Asian, non-Hispanic: ~11%
  • Black/African American, non-Hispanic: ~5–6%
  • Two or more races, non-Hispanic: ~2–3%
  • American Indian/Alaska Native, non-Hispanic: ~1%
  • Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic: ~0.2%
• Household data:
  • Households: ~330,000
  • Average household size: ~3.3 persons
  • Family households: ~75% of households
  • Households with children under 18: ~42%

Notes: Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding. Race groups shown are non-Hispanic; Hispanic/Latino is an ethnicity. Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2023 1-year; Population Estimates Program (2023).

Here’s a concise, source-grounded snapshot for Fresno County, CA (estimates from U.S. Census/ACS, FCC broadband data, and Pew Research on email/internet use):

• Estimated email users: 650,000–720,000 residents use email regularly. Basis: ~1.0M population, ~0.74M adults; 85–92% of adults use email; many teens also use school or personal accounts.
• Age distribution (adoption rates among adults):
  • 18–29: ~95–99%
  • 30–49: ~95–98%
  • 50–64: ~90–93%
  • 65+: ~70–80%
• Gender split: Roughly even (men ≈ women), with differences typically within a few percentage points.
• Digital access trends:
  • Household broadband subscription: roughly mid- to high-80% of households; growing but below top-tier metro counties.
  • Smartphone-only internet households: about 17–25%, indicating many access email primarily via mobile.
  • Library, school, and community Wi‑Fi remain important access points for lower-income and rural residents.
• Local density/connectivity facts:
  • County population density ≈ 170 people/sq mi overall; dense along the Hwy 99 corridor (Fresno/Clovis and nearby cities), sparse in west-side agricultural areas and Sierra foothills.
  • Fixed high-speed availability is strong in urban areas but patchier in rural tracts; mobile coverage is broader, driving mobile-first email use.

Below is a concise, county-specific view built from recent public research (ACS/Pew/FCC/CPUC) and reasonable projections. Figures are presented as ranges where precise local counts aren’t published. Emphasis is on how Fresno County differs from California overall.

County snapshot

• Population: roughly 1.0–1.1 million, with a large urban core (Fresno/Clovis) and extensive rural/agricultural areas (west side and Sierra foothills).
• Demographics: younger and lower-income than the state average; majority Hispanic/Latino; high share of Spanish-speaking households.

User estimates

• Unique mobile users: about 800,000–875,000 residents use a mobile phone regularly.
  • Method: adult ownership near national levels (mid- to high-90s%) tempered by lower-income/older segments; includes teens with high adoption.
• Active lines (phones, hotspots, tablets, IoT): roughly 1.1–1.3 million lines active in the county at any time.
• Smartphone adoption: high overall, but modestly below the California average, driven by older and lower-income segments.
• Prepaid vs. postpaid: prepaid share is meaningfully higher than the state average, reflecting income mix, migrant/seasonal work, and stronger Lifeline participation.
• Smartphone-only internet households: noticeably higher than the California average (think high teens to mid-20s% locally vs. low-to-mid teens statewide), due to affordability constraints and rural broadband gaps.

Demographic patterns (how Fresno differs from statewide)

• Income: lower-income households are more likely to rely on prepaid plans, shared family plans, and refurbished devices; data caps and hotspot use are more common than in coastal metros.
• Age: younger adults mirror statewide near-universal smartphone use; adults 65+ trail state averages more sharply, with more basic/older devices and limited data plans.
• Language/ethnicity: higher Spanish-speaking share drives above-average use of OTT messaging (e.g., WhatsApp) and community MVNOs offering Spanish-language support; marketing and customer care demand bilingual access more than in most CA counties.
• Students and farmworker communities: outsized dependence on mobile hotspots and school-issued devices persists; seasonal workers favor flexible prepaid and community Wi‑Fi.

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• 5G footprint:
  • Urban core: strong mid-band 5G from major carriers; T-Mobile’s mid-band is especially pervasive; AT&T/Verizon C-band is present along major corridors and in-city.
  • mmWave: very limited outside select downtown or venue areas—far less dense than in Los Angeles/Bay Area.
• Rural gaps:
  • Noticeable coverage and capacity constraints in west-side farm areas (e.g., Mendota/Firebaugh corridors) and Sierra foothills/lakes (Auberry, Shaver Lake, Prather). These gaps are more pronounced than the California average.
  • Highway corridors (99/41/180/168/198) are generally well covered; off-corridor fields and foothills see variable performance.
• Backhaul/fiber:
  • The State’s middle‑mile build along Central Valley corridors is improving backhaul options around Fresno, supporting 5G capacity upgrades. Still, last‑mile fiber remains uneven, prolonging mobile-reliant households at a rate above the state.
• Private/CBRS and ag tech:
  • Agriculture and logistics sites increasingly use CBRS/private LTE for on‑site connectivity and sensor networks—more common here than in most urban counties.
• Public programs and affordability:
  • Lifeline participation is comparatively high. The wind‑down of the Affordable Connectivity Program in 2024 pushed some households toward mobile-only or prepaid solutions, a shift that is more visible here than statewide.
• Network densification:
  • Fewer small cells per capita than coastal metros; macro towers dominate outside the urban core. Local permitting is generally less restrictive than coastal cities, but economics (lower ARPU in rural zones) slows ultra-dense builds.

Key ways Fresno County diverges from statewide trends

• Higher dependence on mobile as primary internet (smartphone-only households) and on prepaid/Lifeline plans.
• Larger geographic pockets with weak coverage, especially in agriculture and foothill areas, despite strong corridor service.
• More mid-band 5G reliance and minimal mmWave; fewer small cells than big coastal metros.
• Greater need for bilingual support and community/MVNO plans serving Hispanic/Latino residents.
• Earlier and broader adoption of private LTE/CBRS in agriculture than typical urban counties.

Implications

• Carriers succeed with mid-band 5G upgrades, corridor-focused capacity, and targeted rural infill; Spanish-language sales/support and flexible prepaid plans remain critical.
• Public investment that extends fiber backhaul and fills rural coverage gaps will disproportionately reduce the county’s mobile-only dependence compared to the state.
• Schools, clinics, and ag employers remain key distribution points for hotspots and digital literacy—more so than in most California counties.

Here’s a concise, county-level snapshot based on Fresno County’s population (~1.0–1.03M), ACS demographics, and platform usage patterns from Pew Research Center (2023–2024) and ad-platform reach benchmarks. Figures are modeled estimates for residents 13+; use as planning ranges rather than exact counts.

Headline

• Estimated social media users (13+): 680k–760k monthly
• Device behavior: overwhelmingly mobile-first; short‑form video and Stories dominate attention

Age mix of social media users (share of users)

• 13–17: 9%
• 18–24: 15%
• 25–34: 22%
• 35–44: 19%
• 45–54: 15%
• 55–64: 11%
• 65+: 9%

Gender breakdown (share of users)

• Female: ~53%
• Male: ~47%
• Note: Platform skews vary (Instagram/TikTok slightly more female; X/Reddit slightly more male)

Most-used platforms in Fresno County (estimated share of social media users; rough monthly reach)

• YouTube: 85–90% (≈580k–680k)
• Facebook: 65–70% (≈440k–520k)
• Instagram: 50–55% (≈340k–410k)
• TikTok: 40–45% (≈270k–340k)
• Snapchat: 30–35% (≈200k–260k; strongest in 13–24)
• WhatsApp: 25–30% (≈170k–220k; high among bilingual/Spanish-speaking households)
• X (Twitter): 18–22% (≈120k–170k)
• Reddit: 18–20% (≈120k–150k)
• LinkedIn: 15–20% (≈100k–150k; concentrated 25–44, college-educated)
• Nextdoor: 10–15% (≈70k–110k; strongest in Clovis/suburban ZIPs)

Behavioral trends to know

• Video-first: YouTube, Reels, and TikTok drive discovery; short, locally relevant clips perform best.
• Local discovery and “near me”: High engagement with food, events, Fresno State athletics, and family activities; influencer recommendations move foot traffic.
• Facebook Groups/Marketplace: Very active buy/sell/trade and neighborhood groups; cost-effective for local retail and services.
• Bilingual engagement: English/Spanish creative and captions outperform monolingual; WhatsApp used for private sharing and community coordination.
• Youth patterns: Teens/college audiences favor TikTok/Snapchat; after‑school (3–6pm) and late‑evening (8–11pm) spikes.
• Service and customer care via DMs: Instagram DMs and Facebook Messenger are common touchpoints for local businesses.
• Seasonal rhythms: Peaks around school year milestones, harvest/Ag events, and extreme weather (heat/air quality) updates.
• Trust in local voices: Micro‑influencers (5k–50k local followers), churches, schools, and nonprofits shape community sentiment.
• Event-driven surges: Concerts, fairs (e.g., Big Fresno Fair), and sports create short, high‑ROI windows for geo-targeted ads.
• Creative that signals “local”: Visuals with recognizable landmarks/neighborhoods and bilingual CTAs lift CTR and saves.

Notes on methodology

• Percentages apply national/state usage benchmarks to Fresno County’s younger age structure and platform ad‑reach norms; exact county-level platform stats aren’t publicly released.
• For campaign planning, validate with fresh platform reach (Meta/TikTok/Snap) filtered to Fresno County ZIPs and compare to these ranges.