Clark County

Which reference year/source would you like me to use for the figures?

• 2020 Decennial Census (exact counts as of April 1, 2020), or
• Most recent ACS 5-year estimates (2019–2023), which provide more detail but are estimates.

Clark County, KS context

• Population/density: 2,000 residents over ~977 sq mi (2 people/sq mi).

Estimated email users

• 1,400–1,550 residents (central estimate ~1,450), based on adult share of population and rural email adoption rates from Pew/ACS benchmarks.

Age distribution of email users (approximate share)

• 18–34: 22%
• 35–54: 35%
• 55–64: 18%
• 65+: 25% (Use rates are highest among 18–54; seniors participate but at slightly lower rates.)

Gender split

• Roughly even: ~50% women / ~50% men.

Digital access and connectivity trends

• About three-quarters of households have a broadband subscription; 12–15% are cellular-only internet users (ACS-style rural estimates).
• Fixed broadband at 25/3 Mbps is widely available; 100/20 Mbps is common in towns (e.g., Ashland/Minneola) but patchier in outlying ranchland; some reliance on satellite in remote areas.
• Mobile LTE/5G coverage is strong along major routes (US-160/US-283), weaker in canyons and far south/west sections.
• Public Wi‑Fi and devices available via schools and the public library support access for lower-income and older residents.

Notes: Figures are estimates derived from recent FCC/ACS/Pew rural indicators applied to Clark County’s small, aging population.

Below is a practical, county-level snapshot built from recent national/rural adoption research, the county’s size and age profile, and typical southwest Kansas network deployments. Figures are intentionally expressed as ranges and estimates; they can be tightened with current FCC maps and ACS county tables.

Headline snapshot

• Population and density: About 2,000 residents spread over a very large area (low density). This strongly shapes coverage, device mix, and how people use mobile service.
• Big picture: Mobile phone ownership is widespread, but smartphone adoption and 5G use trail Kansas statewide averages. Coverage is reliable on highways and in towns (Ashland, Minneola, Englewood) and thinner in river breaks and outlying ranchland.

Estimated users and device mix

• Mobile phone users: ~1,600–1,800 residents use a mobile phone of some kind.
• Smartphone users: ~1,300–1,500 people. That’s roughly 75–85% of residents vs Kansas nearer to the high 80s/low 90s among adults.
• Basic/feature phones: ~150–300 users, skewing older.
• Lines vs people: When you include work lines, hotspots, tablets, and ag/IoT modems, total active cellular lines in the county likely exceed the number of residents.

Demographic patterns behind usage

• Age tilt: Clark County’s median age is higher than the state’s, with a larger 65+ share. Seniors are less likely to use smartphones and more likely to keep basic phones or pared‑down plans.
• Youth and families: Teen smartphone use is near universal; households often share data via hotspots where home broadband is limited.
• Income and plan types: Prepaid and MVNO plans are over‑represented compared with the state average, reflecting price sensitivity and “coverage shopping.”
• Platform mix: Android share tends to be higher than statewide (rural norm), driven by price range breadth and availability.

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• Carriers present: AT&T/FirstNet, Verizon, and T‑Mobile serve the area; roaming onto neighboring‑state networks can occur near the Oklahoma line.
• Coverage pattern: Strongest along US‑160 and US‑283 corridors and in/near towns; weaker in the Cimarron River breaks and on section roads far from highways. Expect dead zones in low valleys and behind terrain features.
• 5G reality: Predominantly low‑band 5G (coverage‑first) with limited or no mid‑band 5G capacity layers outside town centers. Practical speeds often resemble solid LTE. Millimeter‑wave is not a factor.
• Backhaul: Mixed fiber and microwave. Fibered sites tend to be those closest to highways and town exchanges; microwave links feed remote sites.
• Public safety: FirstNet coverage generally tracks AT&T’s LTE/low‑band 5G footprint; adoption by county responders is typical for rural Kansas following wildfire and severe‑weather events.
• Alternatives/offload: Fixed wireless and satellite (e.g., Starlink) are increasingly used at homes and ranches; public Wi‑Fi is concentrated in schools, libraries, clinics, and city buildings. Many households are “cellular‑primary” or “cellular‑only” for internet.

How Clark County differs from Kansas statewide

• Lower smartphone penetration and a larger basic‑phone cohort, driven by older age structure and patchier coverage.
• More cellular‑only households for home internet than the state average; heavier reliance on hotspots/external antennas.
• 5G is more about coverage than speed: fewer mid‑band capacity sites than urban/suburban Kansas, so typical throughputs are lower and more variable.
• Higher prevalence of prepaid/MVNO use and of residents who keep multiple SIMs or switch carriers to chase coverage.
• Usage skews practical: voice/SMS, messaging apps, weather, ag/logistics tools, and navigation. Less live video and cloud‑heavy applications when away from Wi‑Fi.
• Network resilience matters more: storm/wildfire seasons drive generator‑backed sites and FirstNet priorities; temporary capacity constraints appear during incidents and harvest.

What these estimates are based on and how to refine them

• Baseline population: ~2,000 residents (2020 Census range), with a higher‑than‑state 65+ share.
• Adoption anchors: Rural smartphone ownership typically 5–10 points below statewide averages; seniors 20–30 points below non‑seniors.
• Infrastructure norms: Low‑band 5G/LTE along primary corridors in southwest Kansas; spotty mid‑band; mixed fiber/microwave backhaul.
• To tighten numbers for a report: pull the latest ACS county table on “households with a smartphone,” FCC Broadband Map mobile layers for each carrier, and carrier 5G/LTE coverage disclosures; confirm tower locations via local permitting or FAA ASR data.

Clark County, KS social media snapshot (estimates)

Quick user stats

• Population: ~2,000 residents; ~1,550 adults
• Estimated social media users: 1,150–1,300 (adults + teens), reflecting slightly lower rural adoption than national

Age mix of users (share of local users)

• 13–17: 8–10%
• 18–29: 12–15%
• 30–49: 30–35%
• 50–64: 25–30%
• 65+: 18–22%

Gender breakdown (of users)

• Roughly even overall: ~51% women, ~49% men
• Platform tilts: Pinterest and Facebook skew more female; YouTube, Reddit, and X skew more male

Most‑used platforms locally (share of users on each at least monthly)

• YouTube: ~80–85%
• Facebook: ~70–80% (Groups and Marketplace especially strong)
• Instagram: ~35–45%
• TikTok: ~25–35%
• Snapchat: ~20–30% (concentrated among teens/young adults)
• Pinterest: ~28–35%
• X/Twitter: ~15–22%
• LinkedIn: ~8–15%
• WhatsApp/Reddit: ~8–12% each
• Nextdoor: <5% (limited rural coverage)

Behavioral trends

• Community hub: Facebook Pages/Groups for school updates, high‑school sports, local obituaries, weather alerts, road/burn ban info.
• Commerce: Heavy Facebook Marketplace use for vehicles, farm/ranch equipment, furniture; local buy/sell groups outperform classifieds.
• Events: County fair, church events, booster clubs, and fundraisers drive spikes; posts with names/faces and clear calls to action perform best.
• Weather and sports drive real‑time engagement; local meteorologists and school accounts act as “micro‑influencers.”
• Video: YouTube for how‑to, ag/DIY, hunting/fishing; short‑form (Reels/TikTok) for highlights and local trends among younger users.
• Messaging: Facebook Messenger is the default; WhatsApp is niche (family ties/international) and Snapchat is peer‑to‑peer for youth.
• Business use: Residents check Facebook/Google listings for hours/closings more than websites; practical promos (hours, inventory, service updates) beat brand storytelling.
• Professional networking is minimal (LinkedIn low); advocacy/politics show episodic bursts near elections or hot local issues.

Method note

• Clark County lacks published, granular social media stats. Figures above are reasoned estimates based on county population/age structure, rural broadband adoption patterns, and recent U.S./rural platform penetration from sources like Pew Research. For precise local numbers, a county survey or platform ad‑tool audience sampling would be required.