Madison County

Key demographics — Madison County, Idaho

Population

• Total population: 52,913 (2020 Census)
• 2010–2020 growth: roughly +50%, among Idaho’s fastest-growing counties

Age

• Median age: ~23 years (ACS 2018–2022)
• Age distribution: Under 18: ~28%; 18–24: ~35%; 25–44: ~21%; 45–64: ~9%; 65+: ~7%

Gender

• Female: ~50.4%
• Male: ~49.6%

Race and Hispanic/Latino origin (2020 Census unless noted)

• White alone: ~87%
• Two or more races: ~7%
• Some other race: ~4%
• Asian: ~1%
• Black or African American: ~1%
• American Indian/Alaska Native: ~1%
• Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander: <1%
• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~11%

Households (ACS 2018–2022)

• Households: ~14,000
• Average household size: ~3.5–3.6 persons
• Family households: ~70% of households; ~45% with children under 18
• Homeownership rate: ~44% (renters majority)
• Median household income: ~$54,000
• Poverty rate: ~26% (student-heavy population elevates measured poverty)

Insights

• One of the youngest counties in the U.S.; the large BYU–Idaho student population drives the very low median age, high renter share, lower median household income, and higher observed poverty rate.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; American Community Survey (ACS) 2018–2022 5-year estimates.

Madison County, Idaho (pop. ~53,000; very young, median age ~23–24 due to BYU–Idaho) exhibits near‑universal email adoption among adults.

Estimated email users: 44,000–48,000 residents (≈82–90% of total), driven by college‑age adoption.

Age distribution of email users (est. share of users):

• 13–17: 8–12% (most students use school/personal email)
• 18–24: 40–50% (near‑universal usage)
• 25–44: 20–25%
• 45–64: 10–15%
• 65+: 5–8% (lower but rising)

Gender split: roughly even; slight female majority among users (≈51% female, 49% male), reflecting local demographics and BYU–Idaho enrollment mix.

Digital access trends:

• High fixed broadband subscription in Rexburg/Sugar City apartments and campus‑adjacent housing; more smartphone‑only access among students than state average.
• Rural tracts show greater reliance on DSL/fixed‑wireless and somewhat lower speeds, but mobile email is strong with 4G/5G along the US‑20 corridor.
• Household broadband subscription rate is above Idaho’s average in urban tracts; smartphone ownership is widespread, supporting continuous email access.

Local density/connectivity facts:

• Population is concentrated in Rexburg (the county seat), yielding dense, fiber/cable‑served neighborhoods and extensive campus Wi‑Fi; outlying areas are sparsely populated with patchier wireline options.

Madison County, Idaho — mobile phone usage snapshot (2024)

Overall usage and adoption

• Adult smartphone ownership: estimated 94–96% of adults, materially higher than Idaho statewide (~89–91%). Driven by the county’s unusually young age profile and the BYU–Idaho student population.
• Active mobile lines: roughly 1.05–1.15 lines per resident, implying about 58,000–66,000 active SIMs across phones, wearables, tablets, and hotspots. That per‑capita density is slightly above Idaho’s average due to fewer landlines and more device add‑ons among students and young families.
• Cellular as home internet: an estimated 16–20% of households rely primarily on a cellular data plan for home internet, versus ~12–14% statewide. Overall household smartphone access is in the mid‑ to upper‑90% range, a few points higher than the state.

Demographic factors shaping usage

• Age structure: Madison is one of the youngest U.S. counties; 18–29-year-olds account for an outsized share of adults. This lifts smartphone penetration and shifts usage toward app‑based messaging, video calling, and campus/community apps.
• Seniors: a smaller 65+ share than Idaho overall reduces the “digital divide” seen elsewhere in the state; basic‑phone reliance and non‑use rates are correspondingly lower.
• Plan mix: higher prevalence of prepaid and MVNO lines (student budget sensitivity, shorter tenure) and a lower share of legacy family postpaid bundles than the Idaho average.
• Churn and seasonality: noticeable subscription churn and traffic peaks tied to academic terms and housing moves in Rexburg; this pattern is far more pronounced than statewide norms.

Coverage and digital infrastructure

• Carrier presence: Verizon, AT&T, and T‑Mobile all provide countywide LTE service; 5G is anchored in Rexburg and along the US‑20 corridor, with mid‑band 5G most consistently available in town. Rural fringes south and east of Rexburg more often fall back to LTE.
• Performance pattern: campus and in‑town sectors see higher 5G capacity and better indoor coverage (small cells and sector densification), while agricultural areas have wider macro cells and more variable indoor signal.
• Backhaul and fiber: multiple regional fiber routes feed Rexburg and the US‑20 corridor, supporting robust mobile backhaul and campus/public Wi‑Fi. Fixed wireless and LEO satellite (e.g., Starlink) appear as fill‑ins at the edges where fiber/coax is sparse.
• Public connectivity: BYU–Idaho’s extensive Wi‑Fi offloads a significant share of student smartphone traffic during class hours, reducing cellular load in the city core relative to similarly sized Idaho towns without a large campus.

How Madison County differs from Idaho overall

• Higher adult smartphone adoption and lower basic‑phone share, tied to the youthful population.
• More cellular‑only households and a slightly higher per‑capita SIM count.
• Greater reliance on prepaid/MVNO plans and higher line churn, with semester‑driven seasonality not seen statewide.
• Better in‑town 5G availability and capacity than most rural Idaho areas; coverage gaps persist mainly at the agricultural fringes rather than within population centers.
• Smaller senior cohort means fewer non‑users and fewer landline‑dependent homes than the state average.
• Heavier app‑centric communication (group chat, video, campus apps) and less traditional voice/SMS usage mix than the Idaho norm.

Estimated user counts (order‑of‑magnitude, 2024)

• Adult smartphone users: roughly 42,000–47,000 residents.
• Cellular‑only home internet households: approximately 2,500–3,500 households.
• Total active mobile lines (phones + add‑ons): about 58,000–66,000.

Implications

• Network planning should prioritize mid‑band 5G and indoor coverage in Rexburg (especially near student housing), with targeted LTE/5G infill along rural edges.
• Retail mix that leans into prepaid/MVNO, student discounts, and short‑term device financing will overperform relative to Idaho averages.
• Public safety and outage resilience should emphasize the US‑20 corridor and campus/downtown sectors, where peak densities and mobility are highest.

Madison County, Idaho social media snapshot (2024–2025; modeled local estimates using current U.S./Idaho usage patterns and the county’s student‑heavy age profile)

Overall reach and users

• Population baseline: about 60,000 residents; very young median age (low‑20s) driven by the BYU–Idaho student population.
• Internet/smartphone access: ~90% household broadband; >95% smartphone adoption among 18–29.
• Social media penetration (ages 13+): ~88%.
• Monthly active social media users (residents physically in‑county): ~43,000–48,000.

Most‑used platforms (share of county social media users who use each platform at least monthly)

• YouTube: 92%
• Instagram: 78%
• TikTok: 75%
• Snapchat: 72%
• Facebook: 64% (Marketplace and Groups are the primary drivers)
• Facebook Messenger: 60%
• Reddit: 27%
• X (Twitter): 24%
• Pinterest: 23%
• LinkedIn: 18%

Age profile (share of county social media users; usage tendencies)

• 13–17: 18% of users; 93%+ on social monthly. Core: TikTok, Snapchat, YouTube; Instagram rising; minimal Facebook.
• 18–24: 44%; 98–99% on social. Core: Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube; Facebook used mainly for Marketplace/Groups.
• 25–34: 16%; ~92% on social. Core: Instagram, YouTube, TikTok; Facebook utility use (Marketplace, parenting/community).
• 35–54: 14%; ~86% on social. Core: Facebook, YouTube, Instagram; moderate TikTok.
• 55+: 8%; ~70% on social. Core: Facebook and YouTube; light Instagram/TikTok.

Gender breakdown (share of county social media users; platform skews)

• Female: ~53% of active users; higher on Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook, Pinterest.
• Male: ~47% of active users; higher on Reddit, X, YouTube, Discord (non‑public messaging), and gaming‑adjacent communities.

Behavioral trends and patterns

• Messaging over posting: Snapchat and Instagram DMs/Stories dominate daily interactions; public feed posting is less frequent among under‑30s.
• Short‑form video first: TikTok and Instagram Reels are key discovery surfaces; swipe/scroll behavior favors 6–20 second, vertical, captioned clips.
• Community utility: Facebook Groups and Marketplace are disproportionately important for housing, jobs, textbooks, rideshares, and local buy/sell.
• Time‑of‑day peaks: Evenings 7–11 p.m. are the strongest across platforms; secondary spikes around lunch (11:30 a.m.–1 p.m.). Late‑night engagement is common during the academic year.
• Weekly rhythm: Monday–Thursday engagement is highest; Friday evening shifts to messaging/Stories; Saturday afternoon is strong for events; Sunday sees lighter public posting with steady private messaging.
• Semester cycle: Noticeable surges in orientation/start‑of‑term, housing turnover, and graduation periods; slower during major academic breaks.
• Content that performs: Local campus life, outdoor/Idaho lifestyle, food deals, giveaways, practical how‑to/educational YouTube content, and authentic UGC. Overtly political or sensational content underperforms relative to national baselines.
• Multi‑platform roles:
  • Snapchat for daily messaging and quick coordination.
  • Instagram for social identity, Stories, events, and local businesses.
  • TikTok for discovery and entertainment; strong local hashtag/geotag uptake.
  • YouTube for tutorials, coursework support, fitness, and creator content.
  • Facebook for Groups/Marketplace/community notices; older cohorts’ primary feed.
  • Reddit for tech/gaming, campus threads, and niche interests; skew male.
  • X for sports, real‑time news, and niche communities.

Notes on interpretation

• Figures are county‑level modeled estimates (2024–2025) calibrated to an unusually young population; actual platform counts fluctuate with student in‑migration and academic calendars.