Ripley County

Ripley County, Indiana — key demographics

Population size

• 2020 Census count: 28,995
• 2019–2023 ACS 5-year estimate: ~29,400

Age

• Median age: ~40.7 years (ACS 2019–2023)
• Age distribution: ~24% under 18; ~59% ages 18–64; ~17% age 65+ (ACS 2019–2023)

Gender

• Male: ~50%
• Female: ~50% (ACS 2019–2023)

Race and ethnicity (ACS 2019–2023; race alone unless noted; Hispanic can be of any race)

• White: ~95%
• Black or African American: ~0.5%
• American Indian/Alaska Native: ~0.2%
• Asian: ~0.4%
• Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander: ~0.0%
• Some other race: ~0.5%
• Two or more races: ~3%
• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~2%

Households (ACS 2019–2023)

• Total households: ~11,000
• Average household size: ~2.6
• Family households: ~72% of households
• Married-couple households: ~55–57% of households
• Households with children under 18: ~30%
• One-person households: ~24% (about 10% age 65+ living alone)

Insights

• Small, slowly growing county since 2020 with a roughly even gender split.
• Predominantly non-Hispanic White population; Hispanic/Latino community remains small but present.
• Age structure skews slightly older than the state overall, with roughly one in six residents age 65+.
• Household composition is family-heavy, with a majority of married-couple households and an average size consistent with rural/suburban Indiana.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census (DHC) and 2019–2023 American Community Survey 5-year estimates (DP02/DP05).

• Population and density: Ripley County, IN has 28,995 residents (2020 Census) over ~446 sq mi, ≈65 people per sq mi.
• Estimated email users: ≈22,000 residents use email (about 92% of adults and ~75% of the total population).
• Age distribution of email users (driven by county age mix and U.S. adoption by age): 18–29 ≈16%; 30–49 ≈33%; 50–64 ≈29%; 65+ ≈22%. Adoption by age is very high: ~99% (18–29), ~96% (30–49), ~95% (50–64), ~85% (65+).
• Gender split among users: approximately even, ~50% women and ~50% men, with negligible usage gap by gender.
• Digital access and connectivity:
  • ~80% of households subscribe to broadband; ~90% have a computer; ~7% are smartphone‑only internet households.
  • Highest fixed broadband speeds and provider choice cluster in and around Batesville, Versailles, Osgood, and Milan; the I‑74 corridor shows the strongest wireline competition.
  • Outside towns, fixed wireless and legacy DSL remain common; service quality varies by terrain and distance from hubs.
• Trends: Broadband subscription and average speeds have risen since 2021 due to fiber and fixed‑wireless buildouts; remaining gaps persist in sparsely populated southern and eastern townships, keeping email access more reliant on mobile networks in those areas.

Ripley County, Indiana — Mobile phone usage summary (2024 modeled estimates)

Headline estimates

• Adult smartphone users: ≈19,400 out of ≈22,000 adults (about 88% adult penetration), modestly below Indiana’s ≈90% rate.
• Total smartphone users including teens (13–17): ≈21,200.
• Smartphone-only internet users (adults who rely on cellular and lack home broadband): ≈5,000 (≈23% of adults), higher than Indiana’s ≈18–19%.
• Prepaid share of mobile lines: ≈25% in Ripley vs ≈21% statewide, reflecting a more rural, cost-sensitive market.
• Typical median mobile download speed: ≈45–70 Mbps in-county vs ≈85–95 Mbps statewide; speeds are highest near I‑74/Batesville and along primary corridors.

Demographic breakdown (users and adoption)

• By age (adult population ≈22,000; totals rounded)
  • 18–29: ≈3,900–4,000 users (≈97% adoption) — near parity with statewide.
  • 30–49: ≈7,100–7,200 users (≈95%) — near parity with statewide.
  • 50–64: ≈4,800–4,900 users (≈83%) — slightly below statewide, reflecting rural pockets with weaker indoor coverage and more price sensitivity.
  • 65+: ≈3,500–3,600 users (≈75–76%) — several points below statewide; an older age mix in the county pulls down the overall rate.
• Teens (13–17): ≈1,800–1,900 smartphone users (≈90% adoption), similar to statewide patterns.
• Income and plan type:
  • Lower-income and fixed-income households show higher smartphone-only reliance and greater use of prepaid/MVNO plans.
• Race/ethnicity:
  • The county’s population is overwhelmingly White non-Hispanic; usage gaps by race are not a major driver of variance from statewide rates here.
• Urban/rural within the county:
  • Batesville and Versailles areas have adoption and usage patterns close to state averages.
  • Outlying rural tracts show lower adoption in 65+ and higher smartphone-only dependence, with more prepaid usage.

Digital infrastructure and market conditions

• Coverage and 5G:
  • All three national carriers provide countywide 4G LTE; 5G coverage is broad but capacity varies by band.
  • Mid-band 5G (higher-capacity) is concentrated along I‑74/Batesville and other primary corridors; low-band 5G/LTE predominates in farm and forested areas, leading to lower indoor speeds away from towns.
  • Net effect: solid outdoor coverage countywide, but indoor performance is uneven in low-density areas, especially in older homes or valleys.
• Capacity and speeds:
  • Median downloads typically 45–70 Mbps in populated corridors, with off-peak peaks above 100 Mbps in the best mid-band 5G zones; rural edges often see 10–25 Mbps.
  • Upload speeds are commonly 5–15 Mbps on low-band and 15–25 Mbps on mid-band, with notable variability indoors.
• Tower and backhaul:
  • Sparser tower spacing than metro Indiana yields larger cell footprints and more variable signal quality at building interiors.
  • Recent fiber backhaul upgrades along state routes and electric-coop buildouts have improved consistency near towns, but not all rural sectors benefit equally.
• Fixed broadband interplay:
  • Household broadband subscription rates are a few points below the Indiana average; this drives higher smartphone-only reliance and higher per-line mobile data usage in rural tracts.
  • In Batesville and select neighborhoods with cable or fiber, Wi‑Fi offload is common and mobile speeds track closer to state norms.

How Ripley County differs from Indiana

• Slightly lower overall adult smartphone penetration (≈88% vs ≈90%), largely due to an older age mix and more rural housing.
• Meaningfully higher smartphone-only internet reliance (≈23% vs ≈18–19%), reflecting patchier fixed broadband and price sensitivity.
• Lower typical mobile speeds and more indoor coverage variability away from corridors, a function of tower spacing and band mix.
• Higher prepaid/MVNO share (≈25% vs ≈21%), aligned with rural market dynamics and mixed credit profiles.
• Usage pattern skews: more mobile data used as a primary connection in rural households; in-town users exhibit more Wi‑Fi offload and device parity with state norms.

Method and sources

• Figures are 2024 modeled estimates for Ripley County derived from: U.S. Census Bureau population/age mix, Pew Research Center smartphone ownership by age, FCC mobile/fixed deployment data and carrier public coverage disclosures, benchmark speed tests for Indiana, and standard rural–urban adjustment factors. Estimates are rounded for clarity.

Ripley County, IN — social media snapshot (2024, modeled estimates, rounded)

Population baseline

• Total population: ~29,000
• Adults (18+): ~22,000
• Active social media users (18+): ~18,300 (≈82% of adults)

Most-used platforms among local social media users

• YouTube: 82%
• Facebook: 78%
• Instagram: 40%
• Pinterest: 34%
• TikTok: 28%
• Snapchat: 26%
• LinkedIn: 22%
• X (Twitter): 16%
• WhatsApp: 15%
• Reddit: 14%
• Nextdoor: 7%

Age makeup of social media users

• 13–17: 8% of users (teen usage is high but smaller cohort size)
• 18–24: 12%
• 25–34: 18%
• 35–44: 19%
• 45–54: 17%
• 55–64: 14%
• 65+: 12%

Gender breakdown of users

• Women: 52%
• Men: 48%
• Notable skews: Pinterest and Facebook lean female; Reddit, X, and YouTube lean male; Snapchat and Instagram lean younger/female.

Behavioral trends and local patterns

• Facebook is the community hub: heavy use of Groups (schools, churches, county fair, youth sports, town-specific buy/sell/trade), Marketplace, and event posts. Local businesses see strong engagement with timely updates, deals, and photo carousels.
• YouTube is ubiquitous for how-to/DIY, home and auto repair, hunting/outdoors, and product research; growing living-room viewing via smart TVs.
• Instagram is favored by 18–34 for local food, boutiques, fitness, and creators; Stories/Reels outperform static posts; many cross-post to Facebook.
• TikTok is growing with 18–34 for humor, music, and short local business showcases; effective for awareness but needs frequent posting.
• Snapchat is the default private channel for high school/college-aged residents (streaks, group chats); limited business impact except for geofilters around events.
• LinkedIn use is moderate, reflecting regional manufacturing, healthcare, and commuter professionals; best for recruiting and B2B visibility.
• Pinterest performs for home, crafts, weddings, recipes; strong among women 25–44 and effective for seasonal campaigns.
• X/Twitter is niche, used mainly for state sports, severe weather, and news monitoring; limited local conversation density.
• Messaging: Facebook Messenger is the primary customer-service channel; fast replies materially increase conversion for local services.
• Timing: Engagement peaks evenings (7–10 pm) and weekends; weekday lunch hours see a secondary bump. Video under 30–45 seconds performs best on mobile connections.
• Content that works: community involvement, staff spotlights, before/after visuals, clear offers, and event reminders. Overtly political content and link-only posts underperform.

Notes

• Figures are modeled from Census/ACS population structure and Pew U.S. platform adoption, adjusted for Ripley County’s older, more rural profile; percentages reflect share of local social media users, not total population.