Talbot County

Talbot County, Georgia — key demographics

Population

• 5,733 (2020 Census)
• ~5,55x (2023 Census estimate; small decline since 2020)

Age structure (ACS 2018–2022)

• Median age: ~47 years
• Under 18: ~19%
• 65 and over: ~24%

Gender (ACS 2018–2022)

• Female: ~50%
• Male: ~50%

Race/ethnicity (2020 Census and ACS)

• Black or African American: ~59%
• White: ~37%
• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~2–3%
• Two or more races: ~2%
• Asian, American Indian/Alaska Native, and other: <1% each

Households (ACS 2018–2022)

• Households: ~2,300
• Persons per household: ~2.3
• Family households: ~69%; married-couple families: ~43%
• Nonfamily households: ~31%; living alone 65+: ~14%

Insights

• Small, majority-Black county with an older age profile and modest household size; gradual population decline.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (2020 Decennial Census; 2018–2022 American Community Survey 5-year; 2023 Population Estimates).

Talbot County, GA snapshot

• Population and density: 5,733 residents (2020 Census) across ~390 sq mi, ~15 people per sq mi—very low density that raises last‑mile broadband costs.
• Estimated email users: ~3,700 residents (≈65% of the population), modeled from rural internet adoption and typical email use among connected adults.
• Age distribution of email users (share of users): 13–24: 17%; 25–44: 28%; 45–64: 31%; 65+: 24% (older-skewed county pulls more users into 45+ brackets).
• Gender split among users: ~52% female, ~48% male, reflecting the county’s slightly female-leaning population.
• Digital access trends and connectivity facts:
  • Home broadband adoption lags the Georgia average; smartphone reliance is comparatively high, with many residents checking email via mobile data.
  • Fixed broadband is most available in and around Talbotton and Woodland and along primary corridors (e.g., US‑80), with notable gaps in sparsely populated areas.
  • Older adults are less likely to maintain daily email habits; working‑age and student populations have near‑universal email access where connectivity exists.
  • Recent state/federal broadband initiatives are prioritizing unserved rural blocks, suggesting gradual improvement in coverage and email engagement.

Mobile phone usage in Talbot County, Georgia (2024 snapshot)

Headline estimates

• Population and households: 5,733 residents (2020 Census); roughly 2,350–2,450 households.
• Estimated mobile users: 5,000–5,300 people (about 87–92% of residents); Georgia statewide averages closer to 93–95%.
• Estimated smartphone users: 4,500–4,900 people (about 78–85% of residents), below Georgia’s roughly 88–92%.

Household device and internet profile (ACS-based, 2018–2022; rounded)

• Households with a smartphone: about 82–88% in Talbot vs 90–92% in Georgia.
• Smartphone-only households (smartphone but no desktop/laptop/tablet): about 20–24% in Talbot vs 12–15% in Georgia. This is the county’s most distinctive difference.
• Households with any internet subscription: about 72–76% in Talbot vs 86–89% in Georgia.
• Households relying on a cellular data plan for home internet: about 30–35% in Talbot vs 18–21% in Georgia.
• Households with no internet at home: about 24–28% in Talbot vs 11–13% in Georgia.

Demographic patterns behind usage

• Age: Talbot has an older profile, with roughly 25–27% age 65+ (vs ~15% for Georgia). Smartphone adoption among seniors is lower (about 68–72% in Talbot vs ~80–83% statewide), driving overall adoption down and increasing voice/SMS‑centric usage.
• Income: A larger share of low‑income households (roughly 30–35% under $25k) contributes to higher smartphone‑only dependence (about 35–45% among low‑income households in Talbot vs ~25–30% statewide) and greater reliance on prepaid plans and hotspotting.
• Race and ethnicity: Talbot is majority Black (about 56–60% vs ~33% statewide). Overall smartphone adoption is comparable by race, but smartphone‑only reliance is notably higher among Black households locally (about 25–35% vs ~18–22% statewide), reflecting income and infrastructure differences.
• Education: Lower college‑completion rates correlate with higher smartphone‑only and cellular‑broadband reliance compared with the state average.

Digital infrastructure and performance characteristics

• Coverage: 4G LTE from national carriers blankets primary corridors and towns with generally reliable outdoor coverage; indoor and off‑corridor coverage is spottier than the state average due to low density and terrain/vegetation.
• 5G availability: Present along main travel corridors and around town centers, but with more gaps than typical Georgia counties. 5G frequently falls back to LTE outside corridors, so realized speeds vary widely within short distances.
• Capacity and backhaul: Limited fiber reach and fewer high‑capacity cell sites than urban Georgia produce more pronounced evening congestion, especially for users relying on phone‑based hotspotting as a primary connection.
• Emergency and resilience: Rural spacing of macro sites means localized outages or maintenance can affect larger areas than in metro Georgia, reinforcing the local tendency to keep multiple SIMs/lines in a household.
• Device behavior: Higher use of Wi‑Fi calling in homes with marginal indoor signal and hotspot use for homework and streaming is more common than the state norm.

What’s most different from the Georgia baseline

• Higher smartphone‑only dependence and cellular‑broadband reliance, driven by lower fixed‑broadband availability and lower incomes.
• Lower overall smartphone and mobile adoption among seniors due to an older age structure.
• More variable 5G experience and greater reliance on LTE capacity, leading to larger peak‑hour slowdowns than the state average.

Notes on sources and methodology

• County figures reflect ACS 2018–2022 5‑year device and subscription patterns and Census 2020 population, scaled to 2024 with conservative adjustments; statewide benchmarks use the same ACS series. Mobile‑user counts are derived by applying observed device/adoption rates to population and household counts. These estimates are designed to be decision‑useful and reflect the observable gap between rural Talbot County and Georgia as a whole.

Talbot County, GA — social media snapshot (modeled 2025 estimates) Method: Estimates derived by applying 2024–2025 Pew Research platform/adoption rates to Talbot County’s age mix and rural profile (ACS/Census), adjusted for typical rural broadband uptake.

Overall usage

• Adult residents (18+): ≈4,500
• Adult social media users: ≈3,300 (74% of adults)
• Residents 13+ using at least one platform: ≈74%

Age groups (share of each age group using social media)

• 13–17: 84%
• 18–29: 93%
• 30–49: 85%
• 50–64: 71%
• 65+: 49%

Gender (share of social media users)

• Female: 52%
• Male: 48%

Most‑used platforms among adult social media users (use at least monthly)

• YouTube: 82%
• Facebook: 78%
• Instagram: 38%
• Pinterest: 31%
• TikTok: 28%
• Snapchat: 22%
• X (Twitter): 14%
• WhatsApp: 12%
• Reddit: 10%
• LinkedIn: 9%
• Nextdoor: 5–6%

Behavioral trends and local patterns

• Facebook is the community hub: heavy use of Groups and Marketplace for local news, school sports, churches, county updates, events, and buy/sell. Posts with people, place names, and timely alerts draw outsized engagement.
• YouTube is utility‑driven: strong consumption of how‑to, DIY, repairs, hunting/outdoors, sermons, music; much viewing on smart TVs in the evening.
• Younger skew on visual/short‑form: 13–29s concentrate on Instagram Reels, TikTok, and Snapchat for messaging; TikTok discovery drives cross‑posting into Facebook Groups for broader local reach.
• Messaging norms: Facebook Messenger is the default; WhatsApp use is niche (family ties, small business).
• Timing: Peak engagement evenings (6–10 pm) and weekends; secondary spikes around lunch. Weather events, school/game nights, and local emergencies create sharp engagement surges.
• Content/offer response: High responsiveness to hyperlocal deals, yard sales, fundraisers, and service businesses (auto, home, lawn). Giveaways and clear calls‑to‑action outperform generic brand posts.
• Trust cues: Known local admins, official county/school pages, and recognizable community members carry higher credibility; anonymous pages see lower interaction.

Note: Figures are modeled for Talbot County’s demographic and rural profile to provide actionable local estimates; platform penetration reflects adult users and will skew higher among teens and lower among seniors.