Napa County

Napa County, California — key demographics

Population size

• 138,019 residents (2020 Census)

Age

• Median age: about 42 years (ACS 2018–2022)
• Under 18: ~21%
• 18 to 64: ~59%
• 65 and over: ~20%

Gender

• Female: ~50–51%
• Male: ~49–50%

Racial/ethnic composition

• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~37%
• Non-Hispanic White: ~53%
• Asian: ~7%
• Black or African American: ~2%
• American Indian/Alaska Native: <1%
• Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander: <1%
• Two or more races: ~7% Note: Hispanic origin is an ethnicity that can overlap with race; non-Hispanic shares are shown where indicated.

Households

• Households: ~50–51k (ACS 2018–2022)
• Average household size: ~2.7 persons
• Family households: ~66% of households; married-couple families ~47% of all households
• Tenure: ~63% owner-occupied, ~37% renter-occupied

Insights

• Napa County is older than the U.S. average, with roughly one in five residents age 65+.
• The county has a large Hispanic/Latino community (about one-third of residents) and a majority non-Hispanic White population.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census Demographic Profile (population, race/ethnicity) and American Community Survey (ACS) 2018–2022 5-year estimates (age, gender, and household characteristics). Figures rounded for clarity.

Napa County, CA snapshot (2025):

• Estimated email users: ≈111,000 of ≈138,000 residents (≈95% of adults 18+ and ≈85% of teens 13–17).
• Age distribution of email users:
  • 13–17: 6%
  • 18–34: 26%
  • 35–54: 34%
  • 55–64: 18%
  • 65+: 16%
• Gender split among email users: Female 51% (57k), Male 49% (54k). Usage is effectively parity by gender.
• Digital access and trends:
  • 95% of households have a computer; 91% maintain a broadband subscription (ACS 2023).
  • Fixed 100/20 Mbps broadband available to ~95% of households; fiber-to-the-home reaches roughly 35–40%, expanding along the Highway 29 corridor (FCC/CPUC 2023).
  • ~90% of adults have smartphones; ~12% of households are smartphone‑only for internet.
  • Broadband adoption has risen since 2018; fiber and fixed-wireless deployments are narrowing gaps.
• Local density/connectivity facts:
  • Population density ≈175 people/sq mi across 789 sq mi; denser cities (Napa, American Canyon) have near‑universal high‑speed coverage.
  • Rural and hillside areas (e.g., Angwin, Pope Valley, Lake Berryessa) show patchier fixed broadband, with greater reliance on mobile, fixed‑wireless, and satellite.

Mobile phone usage in Napa County, California — 2024 snapshot

Headline user estimates

• Population and adults: ~138,000 residents; ~106,500 adults (18+) based on recent Census/ACS vintages.
• Any-cellphone users: ~103,000 adults (about 97% of adults, in line with Pew’s statewide “any cellphone” ownership).
• Smartphone users (adults): ~98,000 adults (about 92% of adults, derived by weighting Napa’s older age mix against Pew’s age-specific ownership).
• Total smartphone users including teens: ~106,000–108,000 residents (roughly 77%–78% of all residents), assuming ~95% smartphone use among ages 13–17.
• Households: ~53,000. Smartphone-only internet households (cellular data but no fixed broadband): ~9%–11% (≈4,800–5,800 households), lower than California’s ~13%–15%.

Demographic breakdown and usage patterns

• Older population footprint: ~21% of residents are 65+ (higher than the state). Estimated smartphone ownership among Napa seniors ~72%–78% (vs ~76% statewide), implying ~17,000–18,000 senior smartphone users and ~5,000 seniors without smartphones. This skews overall usage toward more voice/SMS and slower uptake of premium 5G plans than the state average.
• Working-age adults: Ownership is near-saturation (mid-90s% for 18–49; low-80s% for 50–64), keeping Napa’s overall adult smartphone rate close to California even with the older age profile.
• Hispanic/Latino community: ~34% of the county’s population, with a sizable Spanish-first segment. Mobile behaviors include higher use of WhatsApp and a somewhat higher reliance on prepaid plans than the county average, reflecting seasonal and shift-based work in agriculture and hospitality.
• Income and access: Napa’s median household income is slightly above the California average, contributing to:
  • Lower smartphone-only household share than the state.
  • Higher fixed broadband take-up, which reduces reliance on cellular as the only internet connection.

Digital infrastructure and reliability

• Coverage topology: Strongest 4G/5G service along the Highway 29/12/121 corridor (American Canyon, Napa, Yountville, St. Helena) and major venues. LTE remains the anchor in valleys; hills and canyons create dead zones in parts of Angwin, Pope Valley, and around Lake Berryessa—more pronounced than the statewide norm because of terrain.
• 5G footprint and capacity: Mid-band 5G (e.g., 2.5 GHz and C-band) is live in the urban corridor and population centers; mmWave is sparse. Rural pockets rely on LTE with occasional low-band 5G, so real-world speeds vary widely within short distances compared with denser California counties.
• Small cells and event capacity: Downtown Napa and high-traffic venues use small cells; temporary cell-on-wheels (COWs) are regularly deployed for large events (e.g., BottleRock) to handle transient demand spikes atypical of most California counties of similar size.
• Backhaul: Fiber concentration along SR‑29/121 with microwave backhaul to remote macro sites is common, influencing site resiliency during utility disruptions.
• Wildfire/PSPS resiliency: Much of eastern and northern Napa is in High Fire-Threat Districts. California’s 72‑hour backup-power requirement for macro cell sites in these zones is in effect; providers have added generators and batteries, improving but not eliminating multi-day outage risk during PSPS or wildfire incidents. Napa experiences more frequent emergency-driven performance degradation than the state average.

How Napa differs from California overall

• Terrain-driven gaps: Napa has more pronounced rural/terrain shadowing and valley/canyon dead zones than the state average, yielding greater variability in service quality within a single county.
• Lower smartphone-only internet reliance: At roughly 9%–11% of households vs ~13%–15% statewide, more Napa households pair mobile with fixed broadband. This reduces mobile data substitution relative to California as a whole.
• Older age structure: A larger 65+ share dampens top-tier 5G plan adoption and keeps voice/SMS usage marginally higher than the state average, while still maintaining high smartphone penetration among working-age adults.
• Prepaid usage pockets: Countywide prepaid share is modestly higher than the California average in agricultural and hospitality worker segments, linked to seasonal employment and budget predictability needs.
• Event-driven peaks and emergency readiness: Capacity augmentations for major tourism events and a higher emphasis on emergency communications (WEA, county alert systems) are more central to network planning than in many urban California counties.

Key takeaways

• Napa has approximately 103,000 adult mobile users and about 98,000 adult smartphone users, with total smartphone users around 106,000–108,000 including teens.
• Compared with California, Napa shows:
  • Similar overall smartphone penetration but a lower share of smartphone-only households.
  • More variable coverage and speed due to terrain and rural zones.
  • Slightly higher prepaid usage in specific worker cohorts and greater focus on resiliency because of wildfire/PSPS risk.

Napa County, CA – social media usage snapshot (localized to 2025 using 2023 ACS demographics and 2024–2025 Pew/platform data)

Headline numbers

• Population: ~135,000 (2023 est.). Residents aged 13+: ~115,000.
• Social media penetration (13+): ~85% → ~98,000 residents use social monthly.
• Gender among social users: ~53% female, ~47% male (women adopt slightly more across Facebook/Instagram/Pinterest).
• Age mix of social users: 13–17: 9%; 18–29: 20%; 30–44: 27%; 45–64: 30%; 65+: 14% (skews older than CA overall, lifting Facebook/Nextdoor and moderating TikTok/Snapchat).

Most-used platforms (share of residents 13+ who use monthly; rounded)

• YouTube: 82% (~94k)
• Facebook: 63% (~72k)
• Instagram: 42% (~48k)
• Pinterest: 31% (~36k)
• LinkedIn: 27% (~31k)
• TikTok: 28% (~32k)
• Nextdoor: 22% (~26k) — elevated by higher homeownership
• Snapchat: 21% (~24k)
• X (Twitter): 16% (~18k)

Usage frequency among platform users (daily use, broadly consistent locally)

• Facebook ~70% daily; Instagram ~59% daily; TikTok ~54% daily; Snapchat ~59% daily; YouTube ~54% daily.

Age-group patterns (local)

• Teens (13–17): Heavy on YouTube, Snapchat, TikTok; lighter on Facebook. Driven by schools, sports, and creator content; low interest in long-form local issues unless safety/weather related.
• 18–29: Instagram, YouTube, TikTok dominant; high Reels/Stories consumption; discovery for dining, nightlife, seasonal experiences.
• 30–44: Instagram + Facebook dual-use; high engagement with family, school district, and activity planning content; strong buyer intent for events and local services.
• 45–64: Facebook and Nextdoor lead; YouTube strong; Instagram moderate; high interaction with community groups, public safety, utilities, and civic updates.
• 65+: Facebook and YouTube primary; Nextdoor notable; lower but growing Instagram use (grandchildren/family updates).

Gender breakdown by platform (local tendency)

• Female-skewed: Pinterest (≈70%+ of users), Instagram slight female majority, Facebook slight female majority, Nextdoor female-leaning.
• Male-neutral/slight male-skew: YouTube, LinkedIn, X.

Behavioral trends and what performs locally

• Community-first platforms: Facebook Groups and Nextdoor drive neighborhood info, school and event RSVPs, wildfire/PSPS updates, lost-and-found, and city services. Practical posts (dates, maps, closures) outperform creative-only.
• Hospitality/tourism funnel: Instagram and TikTok power discovery for wineries, tasting rooms, restaurants, and boutique stays; “reels” with itineraries, chef features, and vineyard visuals convert best. UGC and geotagged posts (Napa/Napa Valley/Yountville/St. Helena/Calistoga) push bookings.
• Seasonality: Noticeable engagement lift during late summer–harvest (Aug–Oct) and event weekends; shoulder-season promos perform via Facebook Events and Instagram countdowns.
• Creative formats: Short vertical video (15–30s) and carousels outperform static; behind-the-scenes and staff spotlights increase saves and shares; map-based “how to plan your day” posts earn high saves.
• Calls-to-action: “Book,” “RSVP,” and “Message to reserve” convert; Instagram DMs and Facebook Messenger are common for last‑minute reservations/updates.
• Local trust signals: Reviews, neighbor recommendations (Nextdoor), and creator posts with on-site proof (geo-stickers, quick clips at recognizable venues) materially increase click-through.
• Paid tactics that work: Tight geo-targeting (15–100 miles), lookalike audiences from website/booker lists, retargeting of site visitors, and boosting high-performing Reels during event windows.

Notes on method

• Figures are localized estimates calibrated to Napa County’s age/homeownership profile (U.S. Census/ACS 2023), Pew Research Center’s 2024 social media adoption/daily-use benchmarks, and platform ad-planning data as of early 2025. Percentages are rounded and intended for planning-level accuracy.