Madison County

Madison County, Indiana — key demographics (latest U.S. Census Bureau data, primarily 2020 Census and 2018–2022 ACS):

Population size

• Total population: ~130,000–132,000 (2020 Census ~130k; recent estimates ~131k). Population has been essentially flat since 2010.

Age

• Median age: ~41 years
• Under 18: ~22–23%
• 65 and over: ~19%

Gender

• Female: ~51%
• Male: ~49%

Racial/ethnic composition

• White alone: ~84–85%
• Black or African American alone: ~9–10%
• American Indian/Alaska Native alone: ~0.4%
• Asian alone: ~0.6%
• Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander alone: ~0.1%
• Two or more races: ~4–5%
• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~4%
• White alone, not Hispanic: ~80–81%

Households

• Number of households: ~54,000
• Average household size: ~2.38–2.40
• Family households: ~62% of households; married-couple families ~44%
• Nonfamily households: ~38%
• Persons per family: ~3.0

Notes

• Figures are from the U.S. Census Bureau (2020 Decennial Census; American Community Survey 2018–2022 or most recent available). Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding and the way race and Hispanic origin are tabulated.

Madison County, IN snapshot

• Population/density: ~130,000 residents across ~452 sq mi (≈288 residents/sq mi).
• Estimated email users: ~111,000 residents (≈86% of the population; ≈92% of adults).
• Gender split among email users: ≈51% women, 49% men (mirrors county demographics).

Age distribution of email users (share of users; approx. counts)

• 13–17: ≈6% (~7k)
• 18–29: ≈19% (~21k)
• 30–49: ≈31% (~34k)
• 50–64: ≈22% (~24k)
• 65+: ≈22% (~25k)

Digital access and connectivity

• ~82% of households have a home broadband subscription.
• ~8% are smartphone‑only (cellular data with no fixed broadband).
• ~10% have no home internet.
• Connectivity is strongest in Anderson and other city areas served by cable and some fiber; rural townships rely more on DSL and fixed wireless, which correlates with slightly lower adoption among older and lower‑income residents.
• Mobile access is widespread, so a large share of email is likely read on smartphones.

Overall: Email reach is high across all ages, with the most engaged cohorts 18–64 and solid participation among seniors; modest rural access gaps persist but do not materially limit county‑wide email penetration.

Mobile phone usage in Madison County, Indiana (2025 snapshot)

Headline numbers (modeled from latest public datasets: U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2022–2023, Pew Research 2023, FCC mobile coverage 2024)

• Population: ~130,300; households: ~52,200; adults (18+): ~101,600
• Adult mobile-phone users: ~98,500 (97% of adults)
• Adult smartphone users: ~87,400 (86% of adults)
• Households with at least one smartphone: ~47,500 (91% of households)
• Smartphone-only internet households (no wired home broadband): ~8,900 (17% of households)

How Madison County differs from Indiana overall

• Higher smartphone-only reliance: County ~17% vs Indiana ~14% (≈+3 percentage points), tied to lower median income and more rural households than the state average
• Slightly lower wired home broadband subscription: County ~78% vs Indiana ~82% (≈−4 pp), increasing dependence on mobile data and fixed wireless for home connectivity
• Older age structure depresses senior smartphone adoption: County seniors (65+) at ~74% vs Indiana ~78% (≈−4 pp), creating a more pronounced age gap in app-based service usage
• Mobile-first for work and school is more common among lower-income households locally: ~28% of sub-$35k households are smartphone-only in Madison vs ~23% statewide

Demographic breakdown (estimates)

• By age (smartphone adoption among adults)
  • 18–34: ~97%
  • 35–64: ~91%
  • 65+: ~74%
• By income (share of households that are smartphone-only)
  • <$35k: ~28%
  • $35k–$75k: ~17%

  • $75k: ~9%

• Urban vs rural pattern
  • Anderson/Pendleton/Elwood tracts show higher 5G use and fixed‑wireless availability; rural townships have lower indoor 5G signal quality and a higher smartphone‑only rate (~19% rural vs ~15% urban)

Digital infrastructure and performance

• 4G/5G coverage
  • All three national carriers operate 5G in the county; 4G LTE is effectively universal outdoors along primary roads
  • Any‑5G population coverage: ~94%; mid‑band 5G (faster indoor performance) population coverage: ~65–70%, strongest in Anderson and the I‑69 corridor, thinner in northern and southwestern rural tracts
• Fixed wireless home internet (FWA)
  • T‑Mobile and Verizon FWA are serviceable for an estimated 70–80% of households, materially higher than three years ago and above the state share outside major metros
  • FWA uptake has grown fastest in Anderson and Edgewood, substituting for cable/fiber where plans are costlier
• Wired backstop
  • Cable/fiber availability is uneven outside Anderson; combined with the end of new ACP enrollments in 2024, this has nudged more low‑income households toward smartphone‑only or FWA plans
• Speeds and reliability
  • Median 5G download speeds are materially higher in city tracts than in rural ones; mid‑band nodes along I‑69 and near Anderson hotspots deliver two‑to‑three‑times the throughput of low‑band 5G areas
  • For voice/SMS, reliability is high countywide; for high‑capacity uses (video conferencing, telehealth), performance degrades indoors in rural tracts without mid‑band coverage

Usage trends (2021–2025)

• Smartphone‑only households rose by 4–5 pp since 2021, a larger jump than the statewide increase (3 pp), driven by cost sensitivity and wider FWA availability
• Senior adoption improved but lags the state; the local 65+ gap vs 35–64 remains wider than Indiana’s gap, affecting digital health and government service access
• Mobile data consumption per line continues to climb faster than the state average in Madison County, reflecting substitution away from wired broadband among price‑sensitive users

Key takeaways for Madison County

• Mobile is the primary on‑ramp for internet access for about 1 in 6 households, a higher reliance than Indiana overall
• Expanding mid‑band 5G and maintaining affordable FWA plans will have outsized impact locally, particularly for rural tracts and lower‑income seniors
• Closing the remaining mid‑band coverage gaps and improving indoor signal in rural areas would narrow the county’s urban‑rural performance divide and reduce smartphone‑only dependency

Notes on method

• Figures are county‑level estimates synthesized from ACS S2801 device and subscription indicators, Pew adult device adoption, FCC 4G/5G availability and carrier coverage disclosures as of late 2024. Values are rounded to reflect modeling uncertainty while preserving decision‑useful precision.

Social media usage in Madison County, Indiana (2025 snapshot)

Scope and base population

• Total population: ~131,000 (ACS 2023)
• Adults (18+): ~102,000
• Adult social media users: ~83% of adults ≈ 85,000 (using Pew Research Center 2024 adoption levels that count YouTube and major social platforms)

User stats and demographics

• Gender (among adult users, reflecting county’s ~51/49 split):
  • Female: ~43,000 (51%)
  • Male: ~42,000 (49%)
• Age mix of adult social media users (modeled from county age structure and Pew age-specific adoption):
  • 18–29: 19% (16,000 users)
  • 30–49: 37% (31,000 users)
  • 50–64: 26% (22,000 users)
  • 65+: 18% (15,000 users)

Most-used platforms (share of all adults; Pew 2024 applied to Madison County adult population)

• YouTube: 83% (~85,000)
• Facebook: 68% (~69,000)
• Instagram: 47% (~48,000)
• TikTok: 33% (~34,000)
• Pinterest: 31% (~32,000)
• LinkedIn: 30% (~31,000)
• Snapchat: 27% (~28,000)
• X (Twitter): 22% (~22,000)
• Reddit: 22% (~22,000)
• WhatsApp: 21% (~21,000)
• Nextdoor: 20% (~20,000)

Behavioral trends observed in counties of similar size and reflected locally

• Platform roles
  • Facebook remains the daily community hub for local news, school and sports updates, churches, events, buy/sell (Marketplace), and municipal notices; Groups drive discussion and event discovery
  • YouTube is dominant for how‑to/DIY, local sports highlights, worship services, and product research
  • Instagram and TikTok lead under 35 for short‑form video, local food and small‑business discovery, and creator content; Reels/shorts outperform static posts
  • Snapchat is concentrated among high school/college‑age users for messaging and stories
  • Pinterest skews female (home, recipes, crafts, events), effective for retail and seasonal campaigns
  • Nextdoor usage clusters in suburban neighborhoods for safety alerts, services, and lost/found
• Content and engagement patterns
  • Short vertical video (6–30 seconds) with captions/subtitles earns the highest completion and share rates
  • Localized, people‑centric posts (faces, behind‑the‑scenes, community ties) outperform generic brand creative
  • Event‑driven and offer/coupon posts convert well; clear calls‑to‑action and location tags boost response
  • Engagement peaks typically align with evenings and weekend mid‑day; mobile usage dominates, so assets should be vertical-first with readable on‑screen text
• Gender skews by platform
  • Higher female engagement on Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest; higher male engagement on YouTube, Reddit, X
• Advertising and outreach
  • Geo‑targeted campaigns, lookalike audiences from customer lists, and retargeting of video viewers drive efficient reach
  • For services and B2B, LinkedIn and Facebook lead for lead-gen; for retail/food/entertainment, Instagram/TikTok + Facebook deliver the best foot‑traffic impact

Notes on method

• Population counts from U.S. Census Bureau (ACS 2023). Platform percentages from Pew Research Center’s 2024 social media use study; local counts are produced by applying those adult adoption rates to Madison County’s adult population. Age‑group shares are modeled from county age structure combined with Pew age‑specific adoption rates.