Putnam County

Putnam County, Indiana — key demographics (latest U.S. Census Bureau releases: 2019–2023 ACS 5-year estimates for composition/households; 2024 Population Estimates Program for total population)

Population size

• 2024 population estimate: ~36,900
• 2020 Census: ~37,400 (slight decline since 2020)

Age

• Median age: ~39–40 years
• Under 18: ~20%
• 18–24: ~13% (elevated due to DePauw University)
• 25–44: ~25%
• 45–64: ~26%
• 65 and older: ~16%

Gender

• Male: ~53–54%
• Female: ~46–47% (Note: Higher male share influenced by the county’s correctional population.)

Race and ethnicity (share of total population)

• White, non-Hispanic: ~85–87%
• Black or African American, non-Hispanic: ~5–7%
• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~3–4%
• Two or more races, non-Hispanic: ~3%
• Asian, non-Hispanic: ~0.5–1%
• American Indian/Alaska Native, non-Hispanic: ~0.2–0.4%
• Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander: ~0.1%

Households and housing

• Households: ~14,000
• Average household size: ~2.5
• Family households: ~66% of households
• Married-couple households: ~49% of households
• Owner-occupied housing rate: ~75–77%
• Renter-occupied: ~23–25%
• Housing units: ~15,000

Insights

• The county is small, stable-to-slightly declining in population since 2020.
• Age structure is balanced, with a modest college-age bulge (18–24) and a growing senior share.
• Racial/ethnic composition is predominantly White non-Hispanic, with small but notable Black and Hispanic populations; institutional populations modestly influence sex and race distributions.
• Household profile is largely owner-occupied and family-based with typical Midwestern household sizes.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2019–2023 American Community Survey (5-year) and 2024 Vintage Population Estimates Program.

Email usage snapshot — Putnam County, Indiana (estimates using latest ACS, FCC, and Pew benchmarks)

• Estimated email users: ≈27–28k adults (≈92% of the ≈29k adult population; total county pop ≈37–38k).
• Age distribution of email users:
  • 18–29: ≈5.9k users (≈98% use rate; boosted by DePauw University presence).
  • 30–49: ≈8.7k (≈96%).
  • 50–64: ≈6.6k (≈93%).
  • 65+: ≈6.1k (≈85–88%).
• Gender split among users: roughly even; ≈51% female, ≈49% male (email use is near-parity by gender nationally and in Indiana).
• Digital access and devices:
  • Home broadband adoption: ≈82–85% of households; ≈89–92% have any internet subscription.
  • Computer ownership: ≈90–93% of households; smartphone‑only internet: ≈8–11% (higher in rural areas).
  • Households with no internet: ≈8–11%.
• Connectivity and density:
  • Population density ≈75–80 residents per square mile (largely rural).
  • Fixed broadband availability is strongest in/around Greencastle and along major corridors; 100/20 Mbps service reaches most populated areas, with gaps in outlying townships where DSL, fixed wireless, or satellite fill in.
• Trend insight: Email remains a default channel across all ages; the 65+ cohort shows the largest growth potential as broadband adoption and device access continue to improve in rural tracts.

Summary: Mobile phone usage in Putnam County, Indiana

Headline adoption and user estimates

• Population context: Putnam County has roughly 36,500–37,500 residents and about 14,000 households. Adult population is around 27,000–28,000.
• Smartphone users: Approximately 24,000–26,000 adult residents use a smartphone (about 87–92% adult adoption). This is slightly below or on par with Indiana overall (about 90–92%), with the shortfall concentrated among seniors in rural townships.
• Cellular-only internet households: An estimated 1,800–2,200 households rely primarily on a cellular data plan for home internet (about 13–16% of households), notably above the statewide share (about 10–12%).
• Households with any cellular data plan (including as a secondary connection): Approximately 70–75% of households, comparable to or slightly higher than the state average due to patchy wireline in outlying areas and strong carrier footprints along I‑70.

Demographic breakdown (share with a smartphone; share primarily mobile-only for home internet)

• Age
  • 18–34: 97–99% smartphone; 10–14% mobile-only (heavy campus and early-career renter segment)
  • 35–64: 90–93% smartphone; 11–15% mobile-only (higher on farms and in exurban areas)
  • 65+: 68–74% smartphone; 16–22% mobile-only (above-state mobile-only reliance; wireline availability and price sensitivity matter)
• Income
  • Under $35k: 85–90% smartphone; 22–28% mobile-only
  • $35k–$75k: 88–92% smartphone; 12–16% mobile-only
  • $75k+: 94–97% smartphone; 6–9% mobile-only
• Housing/tenure and locality
  • Renters in Greencastle/Cloverdale: near-universal smartphone; 16–20% mobile-only
  • Owner-occupied rural homes: 86–90% smartphone; 12–18% mobile-only (lower where fiber has reached)
• Education
  • College students at DePauw drive near-100% smartphone adoption and heavier 5G usage around campus and downtown Greencastle.

Digital infrastructure and performance

• Carrier presence: AT&T, Verizon, and T‑Mobile operate countywide 4G LTE; 5G is anchored along the I‑70 corridor, Greencastle, Cloverdale, and major state routes. FirstNet (AT&T Band 14) sites support public safety and improve rural coverage.
• 5G specifics
  • T‑Mobile mid‑band (n41) covers Greencastle/Cloverdale and most primary road corridors, providing the broadest 5G footprint.
  • Verizon C‑band (n77) is present around I‑70 and denser population clusters; otherwise LTE with DSS fills gaps.
  • AT&T low‑band 5G is widespread but often delivers LTE‑like speeds; mid‑band capacity is growing along I‑70.
• Wireline interplay
  • Fiber: Endeavor Communications and other local providers have expanded fiber in and around Cloverdale, portions of rural townships, and selected subdivisions; this materially reduces mobile-only reliance where built.
  • Cable and DSL: Town centers (e.g., Greencastle) have cable coverage; DSL lingers in some exurban/rural pockets and is often capacity‑constrained.
• Coverage gaps and tower density: Compared with the state average, tower spacing is wider outside towns; northern and western townships see more dead zones or LTE-only service, with indoor coverage issues in low-lying and wooded areas. Signal and speeds are notably stronger within a few miles of I‑70 and around Greencastle.
• Typical performance pattern: Median mobile speeds are lower and more variable than the statewide median outside the interstate and campus/town cores, with evening congestion on LTE in rural sectors; mid‑band 5G areas exhibit much higher and more consistent throughput.

Trends that differ from Indiana statewide

• Higher cellular-only reliance: Putnam County’s share of households relying primarily on mobile internet is several points higher than the state average, driven by rural last‑mile gaps and cost sensitivity.
• More pronounced urban–rural split: Performance and adoption diverge sharply between Greencastle/I‑70 corridors and outlying townships; this split is wider than the statewide pattern.
• Younger-skewed mobile intensity in town: DePauw University creates localized peaks in 5G usage, app traffic, and Wi‑Fi offload, a dynamic less common in similarly sized Indiana counties without a residential campus.
• Senior adoption lag: Smartphone adoption among residents 65+ trails the Indiana average by roughly 5–8 percentage points, contributing to a larger digital skills and device gap.
• Infrastructure catch‑up via co‑op fiber: Local fiber co‑ops have reduced mobile‑only dependence in areas they reach, a stronger mitigation than in some peer rural counties; where fiber is absent, mobile-only rates remain elevated.

Implications

• Mobile networks are a primary on‑ramp to the internet for a sizable minority of households, so carrier capacity upgrades in rural sectors will have outsized equity impacts.
• Continued fiber buildouts and targeted tower infill in northern/western townships would narrow the county’s adoption and performance gaps relative to the state.
• Public venues (campus, libraries) and downtown Wi‑Fi materially offload traffic and improve user experience in town centers; similar community Wi‑Fi in smaller towns could ease rural congestion.

Sources and basis

• Estimates synthesize the latest available American Community Survey Computer and Internet Use data (5‑year series through 2023), FCC National Broadband Map coverage filings (2024), carrier 5G build‑out disclosures, and national/rural adoption benchmarks from Pew Research Center (2023–2024). Figures are rounded to reflect county‑scale margins of error.

Putnam County, IN social media snapshot (2025)

Scope and method note: Figures below are modeled local estimates derived from U.S. Census/ACS demographics for Putnam County, Indiana rural broadband adoption, and 2024 Pew Research Center platform-usage rates, adjusted for a rural Midwestern county with a college presence (DePauw University). Use them as defensible planning baselines.

Overall penetration and user stats

• Adults using at least one social platform: 75–80% of residents 18+.
• Teens (13–17) using at least one platform: 90%+.
• Home broadband adoption: ~78–83% of households; smartphone access is widespread, so most social use is mobile-first.

Most-used platforms (share of local residents who use the platform at least monthly)

• YouTube: 82–86% (broad utility across all ages; how-tos, sports, lifestyle).
• Facebook: 72–76% (dominant for local news, groups, and Marketplace).
• Instagram: 42–48% (strong among under-35s; events, food, campus life).
• Snapchat: 30–38% overall; 70–85% among 13–24 (messaging and Stories).
• TikTok: 30–35% overall; 55–65% among 18–24 (short-form discovery).
• Pinterest: 28–34% (DIY, home, recipes; female-skewed).
• LinkedIn: 18–24% (lower in rural markets; professionals and graduates).
• X (Twitter): 18–22% (sports, statewide news, niche communities).
• Reddit: 18–20% (younger/male skew; interest-based).
• Nextdoor: 10–15% (select neighborhoods; HOA/home services chatter).

Age-group usage patterns (share using each platform; local tendencies)

• Teens 13–17: YouTube ~95%; Snapchat 70–80%; TikTok 60–70%; Instagram 60–70%; Facebook ~25–35%.
• 18–24: YouTube ~95%; Snapchat 75–85%; Instagram 70–80%; TikTok 55–65%; Facebook 45–55%.
• 25–34: YouTube 90%+; Facebook ~70%; Instagram ~60%; TikTok ~45%; Snapchat ~40%.
• 35–49: Facebook ~80%; YouTube ~85%; Instagram ~45%; TikTok ~30%.
• 50–64: Facebook ~75%; YouTube ~80%; Pinterest ~40%; Instagram ~30%; TikTok ~20%.
• 65+: Facebook ~60%; YouTube 55–60%; Pinterest ~25%; Instagram ~20%; TikTok ~10–15%.

Gender breakdown (share of local social media audience and platform skews)

• Audience split: Women ~52–55%; Men ~45–48% (active user base trends slightly female even if the resident population is near parity).
• Platform skews:
  • Women higher on Facebook (+5–8 pts vs. men), Instagram (+4–6), Pinterest (2–3x men).
  • Men higher on YouTube (+5–10), Reddit (≈2x women), X (+3–5).
  • Snapchat/TikTok are balanced overall but skew female in 18–34.

Behavioral trends and what works locally

• Community-first on Facebook: High engagement in local groups (schools, youth sports, events, buy/sell). Marketplace and lost/found posts drive comments and shares. Native posts with faces and place names outperform link-outs.
• College-town effect: In Greencastle, 18–24s cluster on Snapchat, Instagram, and TikTok; short, authentic campus-adjacent content performs best. Geotags, Reels, and TikTok-native trends lift reach.
• Video is default: YouTube for how-tos, local sports highlights, and civic content; Reels/TikToks under 30 seconds get the most completion. Cross-posting vertical video to Reels boosts Facebook/Instagram reach.
• Discovery paths: Facebook/Instagram for local business discovery; TikTok for food/experiences; Google/YouTube for “how to” and repair/DIY. Reviews in FB groups often outweigh ads for trust.
• Messaging dominance: Facebook Messenger is the adult DM channel; Snapchat is the teen/college DM layer. Quick replies and click-to-message ads convert better than link-click objectives.
• Timing: Engagement peaks evenings 7–10 pm ET and weekends (Sat morning, Sun evening). Daytime spikes align with school/campus schedules and local events.
• Creative cues: Real people, local landmarks, before/after visuals, and price/availability in the first line. For services, short explainer clips and testimonial quotes outperform stock visuals.
• Ads mix: Facebook/Instagram provide best local reach and targeting; TikTok is effective for student foot traffic; YouTube in-stream for awareness. Narrow radius targeting (5–15 miles), event geofencing, and Lookalikes based on engagers work well.

Key takeaways

• Facebook and YouTube remain the reach pillars countywide; Instagram and Snapchat/TikTok are essential for under-35s, especially around campus.
• Local groups and short-form video drive the highest organic engagement.
• Women lead overall usage and respond strongly to community, family, and DIY content; men over-index on YouTube and interest forums.
• Optimize for mobile vertical video, evening/weekend posting, and Messenger/Snapchat DMs for conversion.

Sources: Pew Research Center (U.S. social platform adoption, 2024), U.S. Census Bureau and ACS (Putnam County demographics and broadband), adjusted to a rural Midwestern county with a university profile.