Benton County

Here are key demographics for Benton County, Indiana. Figures are from the U.S. Census Bureau (2020 Decennial Census and 2018–2022 ACS 5‑year estimates); small margins of error apply.

• Population

  • Total: 8,719 (2020 Census)
  • ACS 2018–2022 estimate: ≈8.7k

• Age

  • Median age: ≈41–42 years
  • Under 18: ≈23%
  • 18–64: ≈58–59%
  • 65 and over: ≈18–19%

• Gender

  • Male: ≈50–51%
  • Female: ≈49–50%

• Race and ethnicity (ACS 2018–2022)

  • Non-Hispanic White: ≈89–90%
  • Hispanic or Latino (any race): ≈6–7%
  • Two or more races: ≈2–3%
  • Black or African American: ≈0.5%
  • Asian: ≈0.3%
  • American Indian/Alaska Native: ≈0.2%

• Households (ACS 2018–2022)

  • Total households: ≈3,600–3,700
  • Average household size: ≈2.35–2.40
  • Family households: ≈65% of households
  • Married-couple households: ≈50–55%
  • Households with children under 18: ≈25–30%
  • Owner-occupied housing rate: ≈75–80%

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; American Community Survey 2018–2022 5-year (tables DP05, S0101, S1101).

Benton County, IN — email usage snapshot (estimates)

• Population: ~8,800. Estimated email users: ~6,600 (±400), assuming high adult internet use and slightly lower adoption among seniors and teens.
• Age distribution of email users (share of users):
  • 13–17: ~5%
  • 18–34: ~22%
  • 35–54: ~38%
  • 55–64: ~17%
  • 65+: ~18%
• Gender split among users: ≈50% female, 50% male (minimal gender gap in email adoption).
• Digital access trends:
  • Household broadband subscription roughly 75–82% (typical for rural Indiana); 10–15% are smartphone‑only internet users.
  • Most town residents (Fowler, Oxford, Boswell) have cable/fiber options; many farm/remote households rely on DSL, fixed wireless, or satellite, which can limit speeds and reliability.
  • Mobile coverage is strongest along main corridors (e.g., US‑52); signal can drop in sparsely populated areas.
• Local density/connectivity facts:
  • Very low population density (~20–22 people per sq. mile) increases last‑mile buildout costs and contributes to patchy high‑speed access.
  • Ongoing state and provider investments (e.g., rural broadband expansion programs) are gradually improving coverage.

Notes: Figures are modeled from rural Indiana and national usage patterns plus ACS-style broadband adoption ranges.

Below is a concise, data-informed snapshot of mobile phone usage in Benton County, Indiana, with emphasis on how local patterns diverge from statewide norms. Figures are modeled from recent Census/ACS demographics, rural adoption patterns, and national tech-use surveys (e.g., Pew), plus carrier/FCC public information; use them as reasonable planning estimates rather than audited counts.

User estimates

• Population base: ~8.7–9.0k residents; adult share ~76–78%.
• People with any mobile phone: ~6.3–6.9k adults (roughly 90–95% of adults).
• Smartphone users: ~5.2–6.0k adults (roughly 78–86% of adults). This is a few points below Indiana’s statewide adult smartphone adoption, which tends to be in the mid-to-high 80s.
• Total active mobile lines (including secondary devices, hotspots, business lines): ~8.0–9.5k SIMs. In rural counties, lines-per-capita often sit a touch below large metros, but mobile hotspots raise the total where home broadband is limited.

Demographic breakdown of usage (local tendencies vs state)

• Age
  • 18–34: Near-universal smartphone use, similar to state.
  • 35–64: High smartphone use, slightly below state average.
  • 65+: Ownership noticeably lower than state average; more basic/older smartphones and voice/text-first usage.
• Income and plan type
  • Lower median household income than Indiana overall correlates with higher prepaid share, more budget Android devices, and tighter data caps. Result: heavier use of Wi‑Fi when available and more conservative video/streaming behavior.
• Education and occupation
  • Lower bachelor’s attainment than state average correlates with somewhat lower smartphone penetration and slower device upgrade cycles.
  • Agriculture, light manufacturing, and trades drive practical, work-oriented mobile use (messaging, dispatch, location, precision ag apps), often on cost-sensitive plans.
• Access patterns
  • Higher share of “mobile-only internet” households than statewide, due to spotty or costly fixed broadband in some areas.
  • More reliance on mobile hotspots for homework, telehealth, and seasonal farm operations.

Digital infrastructure highlights (and how they differ from state-level)

• Coverage and 5G
  • All three national carriers have outdoor coverage along main corridors and towns; low-band 5G is common. Compared to metro Indiana, mid-band 5G (the faster kind) is patchier and concentrated near highways/town centers, so average 5G speeds trend lower than in cities.
  • Tower density is sparse relative to urban counties; indoor coverage at farmsteads and metal buildings can be weak without boosters.
• Backhaul and capacity
  • Fewer high-capacity sites than in metro areas; performance varies by sector load and distance to towers. Peak-time slowdowns can occur near towns or during events, but overall congestion is lower than in city centers.
• Fixed broadband interplay
  • Towns may have cable/DSL; fiber is expanding but not universal. Many rural addresses lean on fixed wireless or satellite. This drives above-average reliance on mobile data and hotspots compared with the state.
  • State grant programs are extending fiber in pockets, but coverage remains uneven versus urban Indiana.
• Public safety and reliability
  • First responder networks (e.g., FirstNet) generally cover major routes; off-route rural gaps are more common than in metro counties.
• Cross-border effects
  • Proximity to Illinois can cause occasional tower selection/roaming quirks near the county’s western edge—less of an issue in central Indiana counties.

Trends that stand out versus Indiana overall

• Slightly lower smartphone adoption and slower device upgrade cycles, driven by older age profile and income mix.
• Higher prevalence of prepaid/budget plans and Android devices; lower iPhone share than urban counties.
• Meaningfully higher “mobile-only” or “mobile-first” internet use due to uneven fixed broadband.
• Wider gap between outdoor and indoor coverage; boosters/external antennas more commonly needed.
• 5G availability exists but with a larger share of low-band coverage; fewer mid-band sites than metro Indiana, yielding lower median 5G speeds.

Implications

• Services that perform well on low-to-moderate bandwidth and tolerate variable signal quality (asynchronous learning, compressed telehealth video, lightweight apps) will see better adoption.
• Outreach that supports older users (device setup, security, telehealth navigation) and prepaid customers (data-efficient designs) will outperform statewide “one-size-fits-all” approaches.
• Partnerships with ongoing fiber and fixed wireless builds can reduce the county’s above-average mobile-only dependence over the next 2–3 years.

Below is a concise, best-available estimate. Precise, published social stats for Benton County aren’t available; figures are inferred from ACS population data and recent Pew Research on U.S./rural Midwest social media use, adjusted for the county’s older, rural profile.

Headline numbers

• Population: ~8,700 (small, rural; older-than-average age mix)
• Estimated monthly social media users (13+): 4,800–5,400
• Share of adults using at least one platform: ~70–78% (est.)

Age profile of social users (share of users, est.)

• 13–17: 8–10% (heavy on Snapchat/TikTok; low Facebook posting)
• 18–29: 18–22% (multi-platform; Instagram/TikTok primary, YouTube universal)
• 30–49: 32–36% (largest block; Facebook + Messenger dominant; Instagram second)
• 50–64: 22–26% (Facebook + YouTube; some Pinterest)
• 65+: 15–18% (mostly Facebook; some YouTube)

Gender breakdown of social users (est.)

• Women: 54–56% (higher Facebook/Pinterest/Instagram use)
• Men: 44–46% (higher YouTube; some X/Reddit)

Most-used platforms among adult social users (monthly penetration, est.)

• Facebook: 75–80% (community groups, Marketplace, school/sports updates)
• YouTube: 70–75% (how‑to, local sports highlights, ag/DIY)
• Instagram: 32–38% (younger adults, local businesses, events)
• TikTok: 22–28% (younger users; farm/rural content)
• Snapchat: 18–22% (teens/young adults; mostly messaging/stories)
• Pinterest: 22–28% (skews women 25–54; recipes, home, crafts)
• X (Twitter): 10–14% (niche news/sports; low local chatter)
• LinkedIn: 8–12% (small professional cohort)
• Nextdoor: minimal; Facebook Groups fill the “neighborhood” role

Behavioral trends to know

• Facebook is the town square: school closings, county gov’t, church/4‑H, yard sales, severe weather, local sports. Marketplace is highly active for trucks, tools, farm/yard equipment.
• Video first for learning/entertainment: YouTube for repairs, equipment, DIY; TikTok/shorts for quick tips and local flavor.
• Messaging matters: Facebook Messenger is the default; Snapchat is the teen backchannel.
• Lurkers > posters: many consume/reshare more than they post; personal, practical, and community-oriented content performs best.
• Timing: peaks before work (6–8am), lunch, and evenings (7–10pm); weekend engagement is strong, especially around games, festivals, county fair season, and severe-weather events.
• Content cues: local faces, kids/schools, sports, weather, deals, and “how-to” outperform polished brand speak. Avoid overly political tone.
• Ads/practical tips: geofence within ~20–30 miles; emphasize clear value (dates, prices, location); use Facebook boosts for events and Marketplace for inventory; short vertical video works across FB/IG/TikTok.

Method and sources (estimates)

• Population/age mix from ACS/Census; platform adoption calibrated from Pew Research Center (2023–2024) U.S. and rural trends, adjusted for older/rural skew typical of Benton County. Numbers are directional ranges rather than exact counts.