Audubon County

Key demographics — Audubon County, Iowa

Population size

• Total population: 5,674 (2020 Census)

Age

• Median age: about 48 years (ACS 2019–2023)
• Under 18: ~21%
• 18–64: ~54%
• 65 and over: ~25%

Gender

• Female: ~50%
• Male: ~50%

Racial/ethnic composition (ACS 2019–2023)

• White alone: ~96%
• Black or African American alone: ~0–1%
• American Indian/Alaska Native alone: ~0–1%
• Asian alone: ~0–1%
• Two or more races: ~3%
• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~2–3%

Household data (ACS 2019–2023)

• Total households: ~2,450
• Average household size: ~2.2
• Family households: ~60%
• Married-couple households: ~50%
• Households with children under 18: ~25–27%
• Owner-occupied housing rate: ~78–80%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; American Community Survey 2019–2023 5-year estimates. Figures rounded for clarity.

Audubon County, IA snapshot (estimates)

• Population/density: ≈5,500 residents; very rural with <15 people per square mile. Population skews older.
• Estimated email users: ~3,800–4,200 adult users. Basis: ~4,200–4,600 adults and ~90% email adoption among U.S. adults; includes slightly lower adoption among 65+.
• Age distribution of email use (adoption rates):
  • 18–29: ≈95%+
  • 30–49: ≈95%+
  • 50–64: ≈90%
  • 65+: ≈80–85% Older tilt of the county means a larger share of users are 50+.
• Gender split: Roughly even among users (≈50/50); slight female skew at older ages.
• Digital access and trends:
  • Household broadband subscription: roughly 78–85% (typical for rural Iowa counties).
  • Smartphone-only internet users: ~12–20%; mobile email use continues to rise.
  • Connectivity: Towns (e.g., Audubon, Exira) generally have cable/fiber; outlying farms rely more on DSL or fixed wireless, with pockets of underserved locations typical of low-density areas.
  • Public anchors (schools, libraries) provide important Wi‑Fi/on-ramps.
  • Trendlines: gradual fiber buildouts and fixed‑wireless upgrades; increasing reliance on email for telehealth, government services, and agriculture supply chains.

Notes: Figures synthesize U.S. survey benchmarks (Pew/ACS-style) with rural Iowa patterns; local surveys/FCC maps can refine block-level accuracy.

Below is a concise, planning-grade snapshot of mobile phone usage in Audubon County, Iowa, with emphasis on ways it differs from statewide patterns. Figures are estimates based on ACS S2801-style indicators, Pew adoption rates, and FCC/state broadband reporting for rural Iowa (circa 2022–2024). Given the county’s small population, treat ranges as directional and subject to ACS margins of error.

Context

• Small, rural, aging county in west‑central Iowa; population roughly 5,500–5,800 with ~2,400–2,700 households.
• Main towns: Audubon, Exira, Kimballton; primary corridors: US‑71 (N–S) and IA‑44 (E–W).

User estimates

• Adult smartphone users: roughly 3,800–4,100 (assumes ~82–88% adoption among ~4,600 adults; lower than Iowa’s ~90%+).
• Teen smartphone users (13–17): about 360–475 (high adoption, but small cohort).
• Total active smartphone users (all ages): on the order of 4,200–4,700.
• Lines per user: slightly below state average; more single‑line or small family plans driven by cost/coverage pragmatism.
• Wireless‑only internet households (relying on cellular rather than fixed broadband): meaningfully higher than the state average, likely low‑teens percent in the county vs high single digits statewide.
• Prepaid and subsidy usage: prepaid share higher than statewide; ACP’s 2024 funding freeze likely had an outsized local impact on mobile broadband affordability and line retention.

Demographic breakdown (usage patterns)

• Older age structure: 65+ share materially higher than Iowa overall. Result: lower smartphone adoption among seniors, more basic/older devices, heavier reliance on voice/SMS, and longer device replacement cycles.
• Working‑age adults: adoption near state levels, but cost‑sensitive plans and conservative data use are more common.
• Teens: adoption close to statewide norms; school Wi‑Fi and community hotspots remain important for heavy data apps.
• Income/affordability: median household income below statewide median; greater use of prepaid/MVNOs, refurb devices, and hotspotting for home use.

Digital infrastructure points

• Technology mix: 4G LTE is effectively the baseline across settled areas; 5G availability is present but patchier than statewide, concentrated in/near towns and along US‑71/IA‑44. Mid‑band 5G capacity is limited; low‑band predominates.
• Carrier landscape: All three nationals (AT&T, T‑Mobile, Verizon) are present; U.S. Cellular historically strong in rural Iowa. Residents often choose carrier strictly by local reception, leading to more single‑carrier households and less switching than in metro Iowa.
• Coverage gaps: Terrain and low site density create rural dead zones and indoor challenges (metal buildings). Wi‑Fi calling is frequently used to compensate.
• Site density/backhaul: Fewer macro towers per square mile than state average; most sites hug highways and towns. Backhaul is a mix of microwave and limited fiber, constraining peak speeds and 5G capacity relative to urban Iowa.
• Public safety and priority networks: FirstNet (AT&T Band 14) coverage in and along main corridors supports responders; overall rural redundancy is thinner than statewide norms.
• Alternatives: Fixed wireless and satellite fill broadband gaps; some households lean on mobile hotspots for primary home connectivity more than urban Iowans do.

How Audubon County differs from Iowa overall

• Adoption level: Overall smartphone adoption slightly lower due to older population; the senior adoption gap is wider than the state average.
• 5G experience: 5G availability and especially mid‑band capacity are more constrained; LTE remains the workhorse. Typical speeds and indoor reliability lag state averages.
• Plan mix and affordability: Higher reliance on prepaid/MVNOs and refurbished devices; more conservative data use and longer device lifecycles.
• Mobile‑as‑home‑internet: Larger share of households use cellular as their primary/backup home internet (hotspots), reflecting patchy fixed broadband.
• Carrier selection behavior: More place‑based carrier lock‑in (coverage first), less price‑shopping/switching than urban counties.
• Network resilience: Fewer sites and sparser backhaul translate to greater sensitivity to outages and weather than the state average.

Notes and validation

• Use ACS 5‑year S2801 (Types of Computers and Internet Subscriptions) for county‑level “smartphone in household” and “cellular data plan” indicators; pair with Pew age‑specific adoption rates to refine user counts.
• Check FCC National Broadband Map and carrier coverage disclosures for current 5G/LTE footprints and any new tower builds or upgrades since late 2023.
• Because small‑area ACS has large margins of error, present county figures as ranges and validate against state broadband office maps or carrier RF planning updates.

Below is a concise, county‑level snapshot built from available Iowa/rural U.S. patterns, Census age mix for small rural counties, and recent national platform usage studies. Figures are modeled estimates for Audubon County and should be treated as directional.

Headline snapshot

• Population: ~5.6k; adults (18+): ~4.3k
• Internet/smartphone access (adult): roughly 80–85% have reliable internet; 80–85% use a smartphone
• Social media users (adult): 3.0k–3.3k (≈68–75% of adults). Teens (13–17): high adoption (85–95%)

Age mix of social media users (share of adult users; adoption within age in parentheses)

• 18–29: 15–18% of users (80–90% adoption)
• 30–49: 28–32% (75–85%)
• 50–64: 28–30% (60–70%)
• 65+: 22–27% (40–50%) Note: County skews older vs. U.S. average, slightly lowering overall adoption but boosting Facebook usage.

Gender breakdown (of social media users)

• Women: ~52–55%
• Men: ~45–48% Comment: Women’s share is slightly higher due to platform mix (Facebook, Pinterest) and older age structure.

Most‑used platforms in Audubon County (share of social media users; ranges reflect rural Midwest variance)

• YouTube: 78–85%
• Facebook: 70–78% (Facebook Groups and Pages are central)
• Facebook Messenger: 60–70% (everyday communication)
• Instagram: 28–36% (higher among under‑40)
• TikTok: 22–30% (teens/20s; some 40–50s growth via Reels‑style content)
• Snapchat: 22–30% (dominant in teens/young adults)
• Pinterest: 22–30% (women 25–64)
• X/Twitter: 10–18% (news/sports followers)
• LinkedIn: 12–18% (professionals/educators/healthcare)
• WhatsApp: 8–15% (smaller, family groups)
• Nextdoor: <5% (limited presence in small rural towns)

Behavioral trends

• Community‑first usage: Heavy reliance on Facebook for local news: school districts, sports, churches, county/sheriff, volunteer fire/EMS, 4‑H/FFA, community events, and fundraisers.
• Marketplace/classifieds: Very active buy/sell/trade groups; farm/ranch equipment, vehicles, yard/estate sales; Facebook Marketplace is a daily driver.
• Video habits: YouTube for “how‑to” (home/auto/small‑engine), ag content, weather updates, local sports highlights, church services. Short‑form (Reels/TikTok) growing for entertainment and local promos.
• Messaging patterns: Family and community coordination via Messenger group chats; teens favor Snapchat for daily communication.
• Timing: Peaks before work/school (6–8 am), lunch (11:30–1), and evenings (7–10 pm). Weekend late‑morning/early‑afternoon strong for Marketplace; spikes around school closures, storms, and local events.
• Content that performs:
  • Hyper‑local stories (students, teams, fairs, parades), photo albums, short clips, score updates
  • Practical info (weather alerts, road/utility notices), giveaways, and event reminders
  • Local business posts featuring people, behind‑the‑scenes, and clear offers
• Trust dynamics: High trust in known local institutions and businesses; preference for closed/neighbor groups; lower engagement with national influencers or overtly political content.
• Seasonal cadence: During planting/harvest, activity shifts earlier/later; ag/weather content spikes.
• Access realities: Mostly mobile‑first; some bandwidth constraints push toward shorter videos and image posts.

Method note

• County‑specific social data are sparse; figures above are modeled from Pew Research social adoption by geography/rurality, statewide patterns, and small‑county age structure from Census. Ranges capture expected variance for Audubon County’s older, rural profile.