Blackford County

Key demographics – Blackford County, Indiana (U.S. Census Bureau)

Population size

• Total population: ~12,100 (2020 Census). ACS 2018–2022 5-year estimate: ~12,000.

Age

• Median age: ~43–44 years
• Age distribution: Under 18 ~22%; 18–64 ~58%; 65+ ~20%

Gender

• Female ~50–51%; Male ~49–50%

Race and Hispanic origin (ACS 2018–2022; race alone or in combination; Hispanic can be any race)

• White ~94–96%
• Black or African American ~0.5–1%
• American Indian/Alaska Native ~0.2–0.4%
• Asian ~0.2–0.3%
• Two or more races ~2–4%
• Hispanic or Latino (of any race) ~1.5–2.5%

Households (ACS 2018–2022)

• Total households: ~5,000
• Average household size: ~2.3
• Family households: ~60–65% of households (married-couple families ~45–50%)
• Nonfamily households: ~35–40%
• Householder living alone: ~30–35% (age 65+ living alone ~12–15%)

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; 2018–2022 American Community Survey 5-year estimates (primarily Table DP05; household characteristics from DP02). Figures rounded; margins of error omitted for brevity.

Blackford County, IN email usage (estimates)

• Population: ~12,100 (2020 Census).
• Estimated email users: 8,500–9,500 residents (roughly 70–80% of total; 80–90% of teens/adults), based on rural Indiana internet/email adoption benchmarks.
• Age distribution of users:
  • 13–24: 15–20% of users; adoption ~95–99%.
  • 25–54: 50–55% of users; adoption ~95–98%.
  • 55–64: 12–15% of users; adoption ~90–95%.
  • 65+: 18–22% of users; adoption ~70–85%.
• Gender split: Approximately even; no meaningful email-usage gap by gender observed in state/national data.
• Digital access trends:
  • Fixed broadband subscription in county households is likely ~75–80%; computer/smartphone access ~85–90%.
  • Smartphone-only internet reliance estimated at ~10–15% of households.
  • Public libraries and schools act as key access points; mobile data is an important fallback for rural residents.
• Local density/connectivity context:
  • Rural county with low population density (~70–75 people per square mile) compared with Indiana overall.
  • Faster fixed broadband is concentrated in/near Hartford City and Montpelier; surrounding areas show patchier 100/20 Mbps coverage, with ongoing fiber buildouts aligned with state/federal programs.

Notes: Figures are synthesized from 2020 Census counts and ACS/Pew rural-Indiana adoption patterns; treat as directional estimates.

Blackford County, IN: mobile usage snapshot and how it differs from statewide patterns

Quick context

• Population: roughly 12,000 residents; older, more rural, and lower-income than Indiana’s average.
• Town centers (Hartford City, Montpelier) anchor service; large rural areas between them.

User estimates (orders of magnitude; based on ACS age mix, Pew smartphone adoption by age, and rural-Indiana patterns)

• Any mobile phone users (includes basic phones): about 9,000–10,000 residents.
• Smartphone users: about 8,000–9,000 residents.
• Teen users (13–17): roughly 550–650 smartphone users.
• Seniors (65+): about two-thirds to three-quarters use smartphones; many of the remainder use basic phones.

What’s different from Indiana overall

• Slightly lower smartphone adoption: Overall penetration a few points below the state average, driven by a larger 65+ share and lower incomes.
• More mobile-only households: A noticeably higher share of households rely on mobile data/hotspots in place of home broadband (likely upper teens to low-20% range, versus mid-teens statewide).
• More prepaid/MVNO usage: Price sensitivity and credit constraints push a larger share of lines to prepaid and MVNOs compared with the state, with Android share correspondingly higher.
• Heavier voice/SMS and hotspot use, lighter on high-bandwidth mobile streaming, reflecting coverage and cost constraints.
• Lower and more variable 5G performance: 5G is present but is more often low-band with fewer mid-band sectors than in metro Indiana, yielding lower median speeds and more indoor reliability issues.
• Coverage gaps more impactful: A small number of dead/weak zones in rural stretches affects daily life more than similar gaps would in urban counties; residents more likely to employ Wi‑Fi calling and signal boosters.

Demographic breakdown (drivers of variation)

• Age: 18–44 ≈ very high smartphone adoption (90%+); 45–64 high but slightly lower than state; 65+ materially lower than state. Age is the dominant adoption gap.
• Income/education: Lower-income households show higher prepaid use, more data-capping, and higher likelihood of mobile-only home internet; they are more sensitive to promotions and ACP-era plan changes.
• Race/ethnicity: The county is less diverse than the state; digital divide patterns are driven more by age, income, and rurality than by race.
• Work patterns: More blue-collar and shift work correlates with heavier reliance on core apps (messaging, navigation, social) and less on remote collaboration than in metro areas.

Digital infrastructure notes (mobile and fixed) and how they compare

• Macro coverage: 4G LTE covers most road miles; reliability is best in/near Hartford City and Montpelier. Rural sectors run larger, so edge-of-sector performance dips are more common than statewide.
• 5G footprint: Low-band 5G is present; mid-band 5G is spotty outside town centers. mmWave is effectively absent. This differs from Indiana’s metros where mid-band is common.
• Carriers: Verizon and AT&T tend to provide the most consistent rural coverage; T‑Mobile’s footprint has expanded but can show more indoor variability in fringe areas. MVNO users see greater deprioritization in peak times than in cities.
• Backhaul capacity: Fewer fiber-fed towers than in urban counties; some sectors still rely on microwave backhaul, contributing to variable speeds versus statewide medians.
• In-home alternatives: Cable and fiber are available in core towns; outside them, options tilt to older DSL, fixed wireless ISPs, or 5G home internet. Availability of 100/20 Mbps fixed service trails the state average, which helps explain higher mobile-only reliance.
• Affordability programs: The lapse of ACP funding in 2024 disproportionately affected price-sensitive users here, nudging some households toward prepaid mobile and away from fixed broadband more than in wealthier Indiana counties.

Implications for service and outreach

• Network: Adding mid-band 5G sectors and fiber backhaul to rural sites would yield outsized improvements versus similar investments in already-strong metro areas.
• Plans/devices: Prepaid-friendly, budget device financing, and generous hotspot allowances fit local demand; device education for seniors can lift adoption.
• Partnerships: Community Wi‑Fi and library/town-hall hotspots help offset rural coverage and affordability gaps more than they would in most of the state.

Notes on uncertainty

• Precise county-level mobile adoption figures are not directly published. The estimates above combine Census age structure, rural adoption differentials from national/state studies, and observed rural-Indiana infrastructure patterns to highlight directional differences from the statewide picture.

Below is a concise, modeled snapshot of social media use in Blackford County, Indiana. Because platform-by-county data aren’t published, figures are estimated by applying reputable U.S. and Indiana-wide adoption rates (Pew Research Center 2023–2024; Census/ACS population and age mix) to the county’s demographics. Treat as planning estimates, not exact counts.

Overview and user totals

• Population (est.): ~12,000
• Age 13+ population: ~10,300
• Social media users (13+): ~7,600 (about 63% of total population; ~73% of residents age 13+)
• Gender among users (est.): ~52% women, ~48% men

Age mix of social media users (share of all users; counts rounded)

• 13–17: 9% (670 users)
• 18–29: 18% (1,350)
• 30–49: 33% (2,460)
• 50–64: 23% (1,730)
• 65+: 18% (1,350)

Most-used platforms (modeled share of social media users, 13+)

• YouTube: 82% (6,200 users)
• Facebook: 72% (5,440)
• Instagram: 40% (3,020)
• Pinterest: 30% (2,270)
• TikTok: 28% (2,120)
• Also notable: Snapchat ~24%, LinkedIn ~18%, X (Twitter) ~16%, Reddit ~14%, WhatsApp ~12%, Nextdoor ~8%

Behavioral trends to expect locally

• Facebook is the community hub: heavy use of Groups and Marketplace for school and sports updates, church and civic events, buy/sell/trade, local alerts, obituaries, and local politics. Facebook Messenger widely used for direct contact.
• Video first, mobile first: YouTube for how‑to, local government/church streams, and entertainment; short vertical video (Reels/TikTok) performs well among under‑40s.
• Lurkers > posters: A minority creates content; most users consume, react, and share—especially in local groups.
• Timing: Engagement typically clusters around early morning commute/school hours, lunch, and early evening (roughly 6–8 a.m., 12–1 p.m., 7–9 p.m. ET).
• Age splits:
  • Teens: YouTube, Snapchat, TikTok dominate; Instagram used more for DMs/stories than feed. Facebook low among teens.
  • 30–49: Broad mix; Facebook and Instagram for community and family, YouTube for video; Pinterest strong among women.
  • 50–64 and 65+: Facebook is primary; YouTube for practical content; limited TikTok/Snapchat uptake.
• Gender patterns: Women over-index on Facebook Groups/Marketplace and Pinterest; men more likely to use YouTube, Reddit, and X.
• Local discovery and trust: With limited local news outlets, residents rely on official pages (schools, EMS, sheriff, city/county) and well‑known community groups; posts with clear utility (road closures, weather, school info) get outsized reach.
• Advertising and outreach: Facebook/Instagram are the most efficient paid channels for county‑level reach; short video and event posts perform well. Encourage shares in established local groups for organic lift.

Notes on method and sources

• Population and age structure: U.S. Census/ACS for Blackford County (recent vintages); small-county margins of error apply.
• Adoption and platform shares: Pew Research Center (Social Media Use in 2024; Teens, Social Media and Technology 2023) and U.S. digital audience benchmarks; adjusted for Blackford County’s older age mix and rural profile.
• Figures are rounded modeled estimates; validate with your own page/group insights and ad-platform audience tools for precision.