Gibson County

Here are current, high-level demographics for Gibson County, Indiana (U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2019–2023 5-year; values rounded):

Population

• Total population: about 33.5K
• Median age: about 41 years

Age

• Under 5: ~5%
• Under 18: ~23%
• 18 to 64: ~59%
• 65 and over: ~18%

Gender

• Female: ~50%
• Male: ~50%

Race and ethnicity

• White alone: ~91%
• Black or African American alone: ~2%
• American Indian/Alaska Native alone: ~0–1%
• Asian alone: ~1%
• Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander alone: ~0%
• Some other race alone: ~1%
• Two or more races: ~4–5%
• Hispanic/Latino (of any race): ~3%

Households and housing

• Total households: about 13.3K
• Average household size: ~2.5
• Family households: ~67% of households
• Households with children under 18: ~28%
• Living alone: ~28% of households; 65+ living alone: ~12%
• Housing tenure: ~73% owner-occupied, ~27% renter-occupied

Note: ACS figures are estimates and may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

Gibson County, IN snapshot (est.):

• Population/density: ~33,000 residents over ~500 sq mi (≈65 per sq mi). Towns along US‑41/I‑69 (Princeton, Fort Branch, Haubstadt) are most connected; rural tracts have sparser options.
• Email users: ~23–24k residents use email (≈70–75% of total population), based on U.S. adult internet/email adoption rates and local demographics.
• Age mix of email users (share of users):
  • 13–17: ~6%
  • 18–34: ~29%
  • 35–54: ~33%
  • 55–64: ~15%
  • 65+: ~17%
• Gender split: ~50% female / ~50% male among users (email usage is similar by gender).
• Digital access trends:
  • Broadband subscription: roughly 80–85% of households; smartphone‑only internet in ~10–15% of households.
  • Best fixed broadband (cable/fiber) in/near towns; many rural areas rely on DSL or fixed wireless. 4G LTE is widespread; 5G concentrated near population centers.
  • State/federal programs (e.g., Indiana Next Level Connections, FCC subsidies) are funding ongoing fiber build‑outs, improving rural connectivity over time.

Sources: U.S. Census/ACS county demographics and broadband subscription, Pew Research on email/internet adoption, FCC broadband availability. Figures are approximations.

Summary: Mobile phone usage in Gibson County, Indiana

Context

• Population and households: roughly 33–34k residents in ~13–14k households. County seat: Princeton; major employer: Toyota Motor Manufacturing Indiana. Mix of small towns and rural areas with wetlands/river bottoms.

User estimates (order-of-magnitude; based on ACS computer/internet-use patterns for similar rural Indiana counties and statewide smartphone ownership)

• Adult smartphone users: 22k–26k (about 85–90% of ~26–28k adults). Total mobile phone users including basic phones likely 24k–27k.
• Households with a smartphone: 11.5k–12.5k (≈88–92% of households).
• “Cellular-only” internet households (use a cellular data plan as their primary/only home internet): 2.4k–3.2k households (≈18–24%), notably above the Indiana average (~14–17%).
• Prepaid/MVNO share: likely a bit higher than the state average in rural tracts, with postpaid dominant around Princeton/Fort Branch where incomes and enterprise employment are higher.

Demographic patterns

• Age: The county skews slightly older than Indiana overall. Smartphone adoption among 65+ likely 60–70% (below the state average), creating pockets of lower adoption and heavier family-plan dependence. Working-age adults (25–54) track near state averages or slightly higher due to manufacturing workforce.
• Income: A bimodal pattern—higher-income, employer-insured households clustered around Princeton/Fort Branch vs. lower-income rural tracts. Smartphone-only internet and prepaid plans are more common in the lower-income, outlying areas.
• Race/ethnicity: Predominantly White, with a growing Hispanic population near industrial corridors. As seen statewide, Hispanic and younger multilingual households show higher smartphone dependence (mobile-first access) than the county average.

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• Macro network
  • Strongest tower density along US-41 and I-69, in/around Princeton, Fort Branch, Haubstadt, and the Toyota campus.
  • Sparser infrastructure and more weak/spotty areas in the Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge, river bottoms, and some western/northern rural tracts.
• 4G/5G
  • Verizon and AT&T: broadly reliable LTE along corridors and towns; AT&T’s FirstNet presence benefits public safety. Mid-band 5G nodes concentrated near population centers; rural areas often fall back to LTE/low-band 5G.
  • T-Mobile: post‑merger mid-band (2.5 GHz) 5G covers the US‑41/I‑69 spine and towns, markedly better than a few years ago; indoor penetration can still vary outside towns.
• Home broadband alternatives
  • Cable (Spectrum) in town centers; coverage drops quickly beyond city limits.
  • Fiber: limited footprints (select Princeton neighborhoods, business/industrial parks); not countywide.
  • Fixed wireless: T‑Mobile Home Internet and Verizon LTE/5G Home are available to many addresses along the main corridors; meaningful rural uptake due to limited wired options.
  • Legacy DSL persists in outlying areas; Starlink is present in fringe zones without dependable terrestrial service.

How Gibson County differs from Indiana overall

• Higher cellular-only reliance: Several points above the state average, reflecting gaps in wired broadband beyond town limits. This translates into heavier mobile data use per household.
• Slightly lower overall smartphone adoption driven by an older age mix—but among working-age residents, adoption is at or a bit above state levels.
• Carrier mix/coverage: Greater dependence on Verizon/AT&T for ubiquitous rural coverage, with T-Mobile gaining share faster than the state average along I‑69/US‑41 due to recent mid-band builds.
• More uneven performance: Fast 5G around Princeton/industrial corridors vs. noticeably slower/spotty service in wetlands and farm tracts; statewide performance is more uniform in metro counties.
• Plan/device tendencies: Above-average prepaid/MVNO and budget Android usage in rural tracts; longer device replacement cycles than state metros. Enterprise-driven upgrades and iOS/5G device penetration are stronger around Toyota and town centers.
• Traffic patterns: Distinct shift-related peaks (overnight/early-morning) tied to manufacturing schedules—more pronounced than the statewide norm.

Notes on methodology/assumptions

• Figures are synthesized from recent ACS county/state patterns for smartphone ownership and internet subscription types, combined with common carrier buildouts in southwestern Indiana, FCC coverage filings, and observed provider footprints. They are intended as planning estimates and should be refined with the latest ACS S2801 county table, carrier availability by address, and drive-test or crowd-sourced speed data.

Below is a concise, county-level snapshot built by blending Gibson County’s demographics with the latest U.S. social media usage patterns (Pew Research Center, 2024) and rural market behavior. Exact county-by-county platform data is rarely published, so treat the percentages as reasonable local estimates.

County snapshot

• Population: ~33,500; adults (18+): ~25,500–26,500
• Estimated adult social media users (any platform): ~18,000–21,000 (≈70–80% of adults)

Most-used platforms among adults in Gibson County (est.)

• YouTube: 82–85%
• Facebook: 70–75% (slightly higher than U.S. average; rural tilt)
• Instagram: 38–42%
• TikTok: 27–32%
• Pinterest: 28–35% overall; 45–55% of women
• Snapchat: 22–27%
• X/Twitter: 15–18%
• LinkedIn: 18–22% (likely below national due to job mix)
• Reddit: 15–18%
• WhatsApp: 12–18%
• Nextdoor: 8–12% (pockets in town centers; not countywide)

Age-group patterns (est.)

• Teens (13–17): Heavy Snapchat and TikTok; Instagram solid; minimal Facebook posting (parents/teams tag them).
• 18–29: YouTube 90%+; Instagram ~70%; TikTok ~60%; Snapchat ~55–60%; Facebook ~50–55%.
• 30–49: Facebook ~80%; YouTube ~90%; Instagram ~45%; TikTok ~30–35%; Pinterest ~40% (higher among women).
• 50–64: Facebook ~75%; YouTube ~85%; Instagram ~30%; Pinterest ~30–35%; TikTok ~15–20%.
• 65+: Facebook ~60–70%; YouTube ~65–75%; limited Instagram/TikTok; some Nextdoor where available.

Gender breakdown (est.)

• Women: Higher Facebook (75–80%), Instagram (40–45%), Pinterest (45–55%). Strong engagement with local groups, school/news updates, shopping/buy–sell.
• Men: Higher YouTube (85–90%), Reddit (20–25%), X/Twitter (18–22%). More how-to, sports, outdoors, automotive content.

Behavioral trends to know

• Facebook is the community hub: buy–sell–trade groups, school athletics, church and festival updates, road closures, weather, local government and EMS pages. Messenger is a preferred contact channel for small businesses.
• Video rules: Short vertical video (Reels/TikTok) and native Facebook video outperform links. Cross-posting TikTok to Reels is common.
• Local-first content wins: Faces and names people recognize, high school sports highlights, local history/nostalgia groups, and practical info (closings, outages).
• Timing: Engagement typically peaks before work (6–8 a.m.) and evenings (7–10 p.m.), with strong weekend activity.
• Platform gaps: X/Twitter is niche; LinkedIn usage is modest; Nextdoor is hit-or-miss outside denser neighborhoods; WhatsApp mainly for family groups and a few workplaces.
• Advertising implications: Facebook/Instagram deliver the broadest reach and community targeting (10–25 mile radius). Interests that over-index locally: high school sports, hunting/fishing, home improvement, agriculture, trucks/automotive, and college sports (IU/Purdue).

Method and sources

• Approach: Scale national platform usage (Pew Research Center, Social Media Use in 2024) to Gibson County’s size and rural profile; adjust by age/gender patterns and typical rural adoption skews (Facebook/Pinterest slightly higher; Instagram/TikTok/Snapchat modestly lower; LinkedIn/X lower).
• Demographics: U.S. Census Bureau/ACS for county population and age structure (latest 5-year estimates).
• Note: Percentages are estimates, not official county-reported figures.