Brown County

Here are concise, recent demographics for Brown County, Indiana. Figures are rounded; sources are the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2020 Census and the 2019–2023 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates (tables DP05, S0101, S1101).

Population

• Total population: ~15,500 (2020 Census); ~15,300 (2023 estimate)

Age

• Median age: ~50 years
• Under 18: ~17%
• 18–64: ~58%
• 65 and over: ~25%

Gender

• Female: ~50–51%
• Male: ~49–50%

Race/ethnicity (non-overlapping; NH = non-Hispanic)

• NH White: ~95–96%
• Hispanic/Latino (any race): ~2%
• NH Two or more races: ~2%
• NH Black: ~0.3%
• NH Asian: ~0.3%
• NH American Indian/Alaska Native: ~0.2–0.3%

Households

• Total households: ~6,600
• Average household size: ~2.3
• Family households: ~66%
• Married-couple families: ~55%
• One-person households: ~28–30% (about 12% with someone 65+ living alone)
• Owner-occupied housing rate: ~80–85%

Notes: Brown County skews older than the state overall, with high owner-occupancy and a notable share of seasonal/vacant housing.

Brown County, IN email usage (estimates)

• Population context: 15.5k residents, low density (50 people/sq mi) across hilly, forested terrain; small towns with large rural areas.
• Estimated email users: 11k–12k residents use email at least monthly (roughly 70–80% of the population; ~85–90% of adults), based on national/rural adoption patterns scaled to local demographics.
• Age distribution of email users (county skews older):
  • Teens 13–17: ~3–5%
  • 18–34: ~18–22%
  • 35–54: ~28–33%
  • 55–64: ~18–22%
  • 65+: ~25–30%
• Gender split among users: near-even; slight female majority (~51% F / 49% M), consistent with older populations.
• Digital access trends:
  • Home broadband adoption around 70–75% of households; 10–15% rely primarily on mobile data.
  • Fiber coverage and sign-ups are rising via Indiana’s rural broadband programs (e.g., Next Level Connections/BEAD); fixed wireless is common where fiber/cable are absent.
  • Terrain (ridges/valleys, heavy tree cover) creates pockets with weaker service; public/library and school Wi‑Fi remain important.
  • Most residents check email on smartphones; desktop use concentrated among businesses and remote workers.
• Local connectivity note: Cable/fiber footprints are strongest in/near Nashville; outlying areas remain more dependent on DSL, fixed wireless, or cellular.

Mobile phone usage in Brown County, Indiana — summary with local estimates and how it differs from statewide patterns

At‑a‑glance user estimates (rounded, for residents)

• Population baseline: roughly 15,000 residents; about 82% are adults.
• Mobile phone users (any mobile phone): 11,000–11,600 adults (≈90–94% of adults), a few points below typical state urban/suburban rates.
• Smartphone users: 9,600–10,300 adults (≈78–84% of adults), lower than Indiana’s overall rate due to the county’s older age profile.
• Mobile‑only internet households: estimated 20–25% of households, several points higher than the Indiana average (driven by limited wired broadband options).
• Seasonal lift: tourism can add several thousand devices on busy weekends (leaf‑peeping season, state park events), creating short‑term congestion atypical of most Indiana counties.

Demographic patterns that shape usage (vs. state averages)

• Older population share is higher than the Indiana average:
  • Smartphone adoption among 65+ lags the state; voice/SMS and basic phones are still noticeable.
  • Higher reliance on Wi‑Fi calling in homes due to weak indoor cellular signal in valleys and wooded areas.
• Income and plan mix:
  • Median household income is below state average; prepaid/MVNO plans and refurbished devices are more common.
  • Data‑conservative behaviors (hotspotting only when needed, smaller data buckets) show up more than in metro Indiana.
• Work and tourism profile:
  • Many small businesses and sole proprietors (arts, lodging, outdoor services) use mobile POS and hotspots; weekend tourism spikes cause localized slowdowns in Nashville and near the park.
  • Emergency and weather alert reliance via mobile is high, but delivery can be uneven in coverage shadow zones.

Digital infrastructure and coverage notes

• Terrain effects:
  • Heavily wooded, hilly topography creates dead zones along hollows and ridge lines; indoor coverage can be inconsistent away from main corridors.
• Carrier footprint (generalized):
  • AT&T and Verizon tend to offer the most consistent rural coverage; T‑Mobile coverage is present but more variable off main routes; MVNO experience mirrors host networks.
  • FirstNet (AT&T) and other public‑safety prioritization are important for responders; coverage focuses on primary roads and population centers.
• 5G and capacity:
  • Low‑band 5G exists along key routes (e.g., SR‑46, SR‑135) and in/near Nashville, but much of the county still relies on LTE for dependable service.
  • Mid‑band 5G is spottier than state average; mmWave is effectively absent.
• Backhaul and tower siting:
  • Sparser tower density than the Indiana average; scenic and park constraints slow new siting.
  • Limited fiber backhaul outside of town centers means cells can be spectrum‑rich but backhaul‑constrained at peak times.
• Wired broadband interplay:
  • Fiber and cable are limited outside a few pockets; many households rely on DSL, fixed wireless ISPs, or satellite—pushing higher mobile‑only reliance and Wi‑Fi offload patterns at public venues (library, schools, downtown businesses).

Trends that differ most from state‑level Indiana

• Adoption and device mix: Lower senior smartphone adoption; more basic and older/refurbished devices in use.
• Plan choices: Higher share of prepaid/MVNO and smaller data plans; stronger emphasis on Wi‑Fi offload and signal boosters.
• Network experience: More LTE‑only areas, fewer mid‑band 5G footprints, and more frequent dead zones; greater dependence on Wi‑Fi calling.
• Seasonal demand swings: Tourist surges create atypical weekend congestion not seen in most Indiana counties.
• Mobile‑only connectivity: Larger share of households using cellular as primary home internet due to limited wired alternatives.

Method notes

• Estimates synthesized from county population and age structure (ACS), national/state smartphone ownership patterns (e.g., Pew, CTIA), FCC coverage/backhaul constraints in rural terrain, and typical rural‑Indiana differentials. For planning or procurement, verify exact coverage and capacity using current FCC maps, carrier tools, and on‑site drive testing.

Below is a concise, data‑informed snapshot. Because county‑level platform stats aren’t directly published, figures are estimates adapted from recent US (Pew Research Center) and rural Indiana usage patterns, scaled to Brown County’s size.

Context and overall reach

• Population: ~15.5k residents; adults (18+) ~12–13k.
• Adult social media adoption: ~75–85% (≈9–11k adults use at least one platform).
• Teens (13–17): very high adoption (~90–95% use at least one platform), but small share of total population.

Most‑used platforms among adults in Brown County (estimated share of adults; rough user counts)

• YouTube: 80–85% (≈10.0k–11.0k)
• Facebook: 70–75% (≈8.7k–9.6k)
• Instagram: 35–45% (≈4.3k–5.8k)
• Pinterest: 30–40% (≈3.7k–5.1k; skews female)
• TikTok: 25–35% (≈3.1k–5.1k; younger skew)
• Snapchat: 20–25% (≈2.5k–3.2k; younger skew)
• LinkedIn: 15–20% (≈1.9k–2.6k; lower in rural areas)
• X/Twitter: 15–20% (≈1.9k–2.6k)
• Reddit: 12–18% (≈1.5k–2.3k)
• Nextdoor: 5–10% (≈0.6k–1.3k; limited outside denser neighborhoods)

Age profile (adoption by group; platform lean)

• 18–29: ~90–95% use social; heavy on Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat; YouTube near‑universal.
• 30–49: ~85–90%; Facebook + Messenger, YouTube, Instagram; growing Reels/shorts viewing.
• 50–64: ~70–80%; Facebook and YouTube dominate; Pinterest common.
• 65+: ~55–65%; Facebook primary; YouTube for how‑to and entertainment.
• Teens (13–17): ~90–95%; TikTok, Snapchat, YouTube first; Instagram for DMs/Stories.

Gender breakdown (directional skews)

• Overall users roughly mirror population gender split; platform skews:
  • More women: Facebook (slight), Instagram (slight), Pinterest (strong majority female).
  • More men: YouTube (slight), Reddit (strong), X/Twitter (moderate).
  • Snapchat/TikTok: relatively balanced, slightly more female among teens/young adults.

Behavioral trends observed in rural Indiana counties like Brown (what people do, not just where)

• Facebook is the community hub: local groups (schools, county offices, EMS alerts), events, churches, buy/sell/trade, marketplace, and local news updates.
• Seasonal spikes: Fall foliage, festivals, Brown County State Park, art/music events drive September–November surges in posting, check‑ins, and UGC; merchants lean on boosted event posts.
• Video first: YouTube for DIY, hunting/outdoors, gear reviews, live music; short‑form (Reels/Shorts/TikTok) expanding across 18–49.
• Messaging: Facebook Messenger is default for most adults; Snapchat dominates teen/college‑age messaging. WhatsApp usage comparatively low.
• Commerce: Facebook/Instagram are primary for promotions, hours/menu updates, and reviews; locals rely on recommendations in community groups more than formal review sites.
• Posting cadence: Older adults post/share on Facebook a few times weekly; younger users post daily in ephemeral formats (Stories/Snaps) but less to permanent feeds.
• News and alerts: County/school pages and hyperlocal groups are key; rumor control and moderation matter during weather or road closures.

Method note

• Estimates derived from 2023–2024 US platform usage (Pew) adjusted for a rural, older‑leaning county profile and scaled to ~12–13k adults in Brown County. For planning, treat figures as directional ranges rather than precise counts.