Clay County

Clay County, Georgia — key demographics (U.S. Census Bureau)

Population

• 2020 decennial census: 2,848
• ACS 2018–2022 estimate: ~2,900

Age

• Median age: ~50
• Under 18: ~18%
• 18–64: ~55%
• 65 and over: ~27%

Gender

• Female: ~52%
• Male: ~48%

Race and ethnicity (Hispanic can be of any race; shares may not sum to 100%)

• Black or African American: ~60%
• White: ~36%
• Hispanic/Latino: ~2%
• Other/multiracial: ~2%

Households and housing

• Households: ~1,250–1,350
• Average household size: ~2.1 persons
• Family households: ~60% of households
• Households with children under 18: ~20%
• Owner-occupied housing: ~70%
• Renter-occupied housing: ~30%

Notes: Figures are rounded ACS 5-year estimates (2018–2022) for small-area reliability; population count from the 2020 Census.

Clay County, GA (Fort Gaines area) snapshot

• Estimated email users: ~2,000–2,200 residents. Method: population ~2,700–2,900; ~80% are 18+; 85–90% of adults use email, plus most teens 13–17.
• Age distribution of email users (est.):
  • 13–17: 5–7%
  • 18–34: 18–22%
  • 35–54: 28–32%
  • 55–64: 18–20%
  • 65+: 25–30% (usage slightly lower than younger groups, but still majority)
• Gender split: roughly even, slightly female-leaning (about 51–53% female), mirroring county demographics.
• Digital access and trends:
  • Household computer access: roughly mid-80s percent.
  • Home broadband subscription: about two-thirds of households; a meaningful minority rely on smartphone-only or cellular hotspots.
  • 10–15% of households have no internet subscription, limiting regular email use.
  • Email is commonly accessed on smartphones due to limited fixed broadband options.
• Local density/connectivity facts:
  • Sparse and rural: ~14–16 people per square mile across ~196 square miles.
  • Coverage is better in/near Fort Gaines; service is spottier in outlying areas, typical of rural southwest Georgia. Public Wi‑Fi (library/schools) and mobile networks play an outsized role in access.

Below is a practical, source-based snapshot of mobile phone usage in Clay County, Georgia, with emphasis on where local patterns diverge from Georgia statewide trends. Figures are estimates derived from recent Census counts, Pew Research smartphone ownership by age/income, FCC broadband mapping, and carrier coverage disclosures.

Headline takeaways

• Smaller, older, lower‑income county profile implies slightly lower smartphone adoption and higher smartphone‑only internet reliance than Georgia overall.
• 4G LTE is the workhorse; 5G is present but mostly low‑band and corridor‑based, so real‑world capacity trails state metro areas.
• Limited fixed broadband in many areas raises dependence on mobile plans for home connectivity.

User estimates (rounded; 2025 planning values)

• Population base: ≈2,700 residents (U.S. Census Bureau 2023 est.).
• Adults (18+): ≈2,150–2,250.
• Adults with any mobile phone: ≈2,000–2,150 (about 92–96% of adults).
• Adult smartphone users: ≈1,700–1,900 (about 78–85% of adults).
• Total smartphone users including teens (13–17): ≈1,850–2,050. How this differs from Georgia: Georgia’s adult smartphone adoption is typically mid‑to‑high 80s (driven by Atlanta metros); Clay County’s rate is likely 3–7 points lower because of older age structure and lower incomes.

Demographic patterns (what most influences usage locally)

• Age:
  • 18–29 and 30–49: very high smartphone ownership (≈95%+), similar to state.
  • 50–64: lower than state metros, roughly low‑to‑mid 80s.
  • 65+: materially lower (≈55–65%), with a noticeable minority using basic/feature phones—this gap vs the state is one of the biggest drivers of Clay’s lower overall rate.
• Income and plan type:
  • Higher share of low‑income households than the state average correlates with slightly lower smartphone adoption and higher use of single‑line prepaid and budget MVNO plans.
  • Smartphone‑only internet reliance is elevated versus the state (national rural and low‑income benchmarks suggest mid‑20% range vs high‑teens statewide).
• Race/ethnicity:
  • Clay County has a higher share of Black residents than Georgia overall. Nationally, smartphone ownership among Black and White adults is broadly similar; in Clay, access constraints are more about coverage, cost, and device replacement cycles than about race itself.
• Education and age combine to lengthen device replacement cycles compared with metro Georgia, reinforcing cost‑sensitive plan choices.

Digital infrastructure snapshot

• Coverage and technology mix:
  • 4G LTE from the national carriers is the baseline; coverage is generally continuous along main corridors and in Fort Gaines, with patchier indoor coverage in sparsely populated areas.
  • 5G is present but primarily low‑band (broad coverage, limited capacity). Mid‑band 5G (e.g., T‑Mobile n41, Verizon C‑band) appears concentrated along highways and populated spots; reach and indoor performance lag metro Georgia.
• Capacity/performance:
  • Median mobile speeds are typically below state averages due to limited mid‑band 5G density and longer distances to sites. Expect bigger performance differences indoors and in low‑lying or heavily wooded areas.
• Roaming and border effects:
  • Proximity to Alabama (Lake Walter F. George/Eufaula area) means some devices may connect to out‑of‑state towers at the margins, affecting signal consistency for certain carriers.
• Fixed broadband context (drives mobile reliance):
  • FCC Broadband Data Collection indicates many rural Southwest Georgia locations are still limited to DSL, fixed wireless, or satellite. Where cable/fiber is unavailable, households are more likely to depend on mobile hotspots and smartphone plans for primary internet.
• Public-safety and programs:
  • FirstNet (AT&T) coverage extends across rural Georgia; it is available but not uniformly comparable to metro density.
  • The 2024 wind‑down of the Affordable Connectivity Program likely increased cost pressure, nudging some households toward smartphone‑only connectivity or prepaid plans.

How Clay County differs from Georgia overall

• Adoption: Slightly lower adult smartphone adoption, driven mainly by a larger 50+ and 65+ population share and lower incomes.
• Reliance: Higher smartphone‑only internet use due to fewer fixed broadband options.
• Network experience: Heavier dependence on LTE and low‑band 5G; less mid‑band 5G capacity than the metro‑anchored state average, so lower typical speeds and more indoor dead spots.
• Market dynamics: Fewer competing fixed ISPs and sparser cellular site density lead to less redundancy and less plan diversity than in metro Georgia.

Method notes and sources

• Population and age structure: U.S. Census Bureau, 2023 county estimates; ACS 5‑year profiles for age and income mix.
• Ownership and reliance rates: Pew Research Center (2023–2024) smartphone ownership by age/income; national rural benchmarks used to weight Clay’s older and lower‑income profile.
• Network and infrastructure: FCC Broadband Data Collection (2023–2024 releases) for fixed availability; national carrier coverage disclosures and rural Georgia deployment patterns for 4G/5G mix.
• All county figures are estimates intended for planning; small population means small absolute changes can shift percentages noticeably.

Here’s a concise, practical snapshot of social media use in Clay County, GA. Because platform data at the county level isn’t published, figures are modeled from Pew Research Center’s 2024 U.S. adoption rates, adjusted for Clay County’s older, rural age profile and ACS demographics. Treat them as directional estimates.

Context

• Small, rural county (~2,800–3,000 residents), older-leaning; Facebook- and YouTube-centric behaviors typical of rural Southeast.

Overall usage (adults 18+)

• Share using at least one social platform: ~70–78% (about 1,600–1,900 adults).
• Daily users of at least one platform: roughly 50–65% of adults (driven by Facebook and YouTube).

Age mix (local user base and adoption by age)

• 18–29: 10–15% of local users; ~90–95% in this age band use social; heavy on TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, YouTube.
• 30–49: 25–30% of users; ~85–90% use social; Facebook, YouTube, Instagram; Messenger for business.
• 50–64: 28–32% of users; ~70–80% use social; Facebook and YouTube dominate; Pinterest notable for women.
• 65+: 30–35% of users; ~50–60% use social; Facebook primary, YouTube second.

Gender

• Female: ~54% of social media users (Pinterest and Facebook strong).
• Male: ~46% (YouTube strong; Reddit/X relatively more male).

Most-used platforms (modeled adult penetration, Clay County)

• Facebook: 60–68% — hub for local news, churches, schools, Marketplace, buy/sell/trade.
• YouTube: 55–63% — how‑to, sermons, repairs, sports highlights.
• Instagram: 25–32% — younger adults; cross-posted Reels from Facebook/TikTok.
• Pinterest: 22–30% — strong among women for DIY, recipes, home.
• TikTok: 18–26% — under‑35 skew; local sports/events clips.
• Snapchat: 15–22% — teens/young adults messaging and Stories.
• WhatsApp: 10–15% — niche; family/worker networks.
• X (Twitter): 10–13% — news/sports followers.
• Reddit: 8–12% — younger male skew; niche interests.
• Nextdoor: 5–8% — most neighborhood chatter stays in Facebook Groups.

Behavioral trends

• Community-first: Highest engagement on county announcements, schools, churches, severe weather, and public safety posts.
• Groups/Marketplace: Buy/sell/trade and recommendation threads drive real local referrals for SMBs.
• Video habits: Practical/how‑to, hunting/fishing, equipment repair, sermons; short vertical clips (Reels/TikTok) perform when cross-posted to Facebook.
• Messaging: Facebook Messenger is the default for contacting local businesses; SMS still common; WhatsApp limited.
• Timing: Engagement peaks 7–9 a.m., 12–1 p.m., and 6–9 p.m.; older users skew to midday; weekend spikes around church, school sports, and holidays.
• Ads: Boosted Facebook posts with clear CTAs (call/visit, hours, directions) outperform generic awareness; geofenced video works for events; LinkedIn/X have limited local reach.
• Trust dynamics: Residents rely on known admins and local figures; fast, transparent updates reduce rumor spread in groups.
• Youth split: Teens/young adults create on Snapchat/TikTok, consume on YouTube/IG; they view but rarely post on Facebook, except for school/team updates.

Method note

• Estimates blend Pew Research Center (2024) social media adoption with Clay County’s older age structure and rural context from ACS. For precise planning, validate with a short local survey or platform ad tools (reach estimates, audience insights) targeting Clay County ZIPs.