Clay County

Here are key demographics for Clay County, Kentucky (latest available ACS 2019–2023 5-year estimates; population baseline also shown from 2020 Census):

Population

• Total population: ~20,100 (2020 Census: 20,345)

Age

• Median age: ~41.5 years
• Under 18: ~23%
• 65 and over: ~21%

Gender

• Female: ~50.5%
• Male: ~49.5%

Race and Hispanic/Latino origin (percent of total)

• White, non-Hispanic: ~94%
• Black or African American: ~1%
• American Indian/Alaska Native: ~0.3%
• Asian: ~0.2%
• Two or more races: ~3–4%
• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~1–2% (Note: percentages may not sum exactly to 100 due to rounding; Hispanic is an ethnic category and can be of any race.)

Households

• Number of households: ~7,800
• Average household size: ~2.5
• Family households: ~67% of households (married-couple families ~47%)
• Households with children under 18: ~27%
• Homeownership rate: ~73%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2019–2023 (5-year) and 2020 Decennial Census.

Summary for Clay County, Kentucky (estimates)

• Email users: Approximately 9,000–11,000 adults use email regularly. Basis: ~20K residents, ~15–16K adults, rural internet adoption below state average, and ~90% of online adults use email (Pew).
• Age distribution of local email users:
  • 18–34: ~30%
  • 35–64: ~50%
  • 65+: ~20% Older residents are less connected, so they’re underrepresented among email users compared with their population share.
• Gender split: Roughly balanced (~50% female, ~50% male); email use shows minimal gender differences.
• Digital access trends:
  • Household broadband subscription in Clay County is well below the U.S. average; many residents are smartphone‑only users.
  • The end of Affordable Connectivity Program funding in 2024 likely reduced affordability and could depress email/internet use among low‑income households.
  • Connectivity is strongest in and around Manchester; outlying areas report patchier fixed broadband and cellular coverage.
• Local density/connectivity facts:
  • Population density is low (~40–45 people per square mile), and the county’s mountainous terrain raises last‑mile costs, contributing to slower speeds and fewer provider options than urban Kentucky.
  • Public access points (schools, libraries, government buildings) remain important on‑ramps for email and online services.

Sources informing estimates: U.S. Census/ACS, Pew Research Center, FCC broadband data.

Below is a concise, decision-ready snapshot of mobile phone usage in Clay County, Kentucky, emphasizing how local patterns differ from statewide trends. Figures are estimates derived from recent population counts, rural Appalachian county patterns in ACS “Computer and Internet Use” data (S2801, 5‑year), FCC mobile availability filings, and national adoption research.

Quick profile

• Rural, mountainous Appalachian county; ≈19–21k residents in 2023; ≈7–8k households.
• Low population density, older age mix, and lower incomes than the Kentucky average—all of which shape mobile access and usage.

User estimates

• Mobile phone users (any mobile phone): ≈16–18k residents (about 80–88% of the total population). Lower than Kentucky overall, which aligns more closely with national adult mobile ownership (~90%+).
• Smartphone users: ≈12–14k residents (roughly 60–72% of the total population; ~70–80% of adults). This trails Kentucky’s statewide adult smartphone adoption (closer to the national ~85%).
• Mobile-only internet households (smartphone/cellular is primary or only home internet): ≈2.0–2.6k households (≈28–35%). This is notably higher than Kentucky statewide (~17–22%), reflecting limited fixed-broadband options and pricing barriers.

Demographic breakdown (directional)

• Age:
  • 18–34: near-universal mobile and high smartphone use (≈90%+), similar to the state.
  • 35–64: high smartphone use but modestly below state levels.
  • 65+: substantially lower smartphone adoption (≈40–55%), creating a bigger senior digital gap than the state average.
• Income and plan type:
  • Greater reliance on prepaid and budget plans than statewide; more device sharing within households.
  • The 2024 lapse of the ACP subsidy likely produced more churn and plan downgrades than in urban/state averages.
• Education/household composition:
  • Above-average share of “smartphone-dependent” students for homework access; libraries and school hotspots are a critical supplement.
• Race/ethnicity:
  • County is predominantly White; usage disparities are driven more by age, income, geography, and disability status than by race.

Digital infrastructure highlights

• Coverage and technology:
  • 4G LTE is the practical baseline; performance drops in hollows and ridge-shadowed areas.
  • 5G availability is mostly low-band near Manchester and along primary corridors; mid-band 5G coverage is limited compared with Kentucky’s metro counties.
  • Typical user speeds are lower and more variable than the state’s urban/suburban median; uplink performance is a frequent constraint for telehealth and remote work.
• Carriers and network footprint:
  • AT&T/FirstNet and Verizon provide the broadest footprints; T‑Mobile coverage is more limited outside the county seat and main highways; a regional carrier (e.g., Appalachian Wireless) may offer pockets of coverage/roaming.
  • New FirstNet Band 14 sites have improved public safety reliability but don’t fully eliminate dead zones.
• Backhaul and middle-mile:
  • Mix of microwave and fiber backhaul; middle‑mile fiber reaches the county seat and institutions via statewide networks, but last‑mile constraints persist in outlying communities.
• Siting and terrain:
  • Towers cluster along US‑421/KY‑80/KY‑11 and near population centers; steep terrain and national forest lands complicate infill, leaving notable gaps.
• Public access:
  • Libraries, schools, and clinics act as de facto connectivity hubs; handset-based tethering is common for homework and job applications.

How Clay County differs from Kentucky overall

• Lower adult smartphone adoption, driven by older age structure and income constraints.
• Much higher reliance on mobile as the primary/only home internet connection.
• Slower, patchier 5G rollout (especially mid‑band) and more persistent coverage gaps.
• Higher prevalence of prepaid plans and Android devices; iPhone share likely lower than statewide.
• Greater sensitivity to subsidy/program changes (ACP/Lifeline) and device financing terms.
• Heavier use of public Wi‑Fi and handset tethering to fill fixed-broadband gaps.

What to monitor next

• Updated ACS S2801 (5‑year) for county-specific smartphone and subscription rates.
• FCC Broadband Data Collection mobile maps and drive-test data for 5G expansion beyond Manchester and corridors.
• Post-ACP affordability programs from carriers and any state Appalachian connectivity grants that could shift households from mobile-only to mixed or fixed-plus-mobile access.

Below is a concise, best-available estimate for social media use in Clay County, KY (population ≈20,500). Figures are modeled from recent Pew Research and rural/Kentucky patterns, scaled to local demographics. Multi-platform use is common, so percentages won’t sum to 100.

Overall usage

• Estimated social media users: 13,500–15,500 residents age 13+ (≈75–86% of 13+ population).
• Device reality: overwhelmingly mobile-first; home broadband can be patchy, shaping short-video and image-heavy consumption.

Most-used platforms (share of residents 13+)

• YouTube: 70–80%
• Facebook: 60–70%
• Instagram: 30–40%
• TikTok: 25–35%
• Snapchat: 20–30% (concentrated under 30)
• Pinterest: 20–30% (primarily women)
• X/Twitter: 10–15%
• Reddit: 8–12%
• LinkedIn: 8–12%
• Nextdoor: <5% (FB groups fill that niche)

Age groups (who’s using what)

• Teens (13–17): YouTube 90–95%; TikTok 60–70%; Snapchat 55–65%; Instagram 45–55%; Facebook 25–35%.
• 18–29: YouTube ~90%; Instagram 65–75%; TikTok 60–70%; Snapchat 50–60%; Facebook 65–75%.
• 30–49: Facebook 80–85%; YouTube ~85%; Instagram 45–55%; TikTok 35–45%; Pinterest 35–45% of women.
• 50–64: Facebook 75–85%; YouTube 65–75%; Instagram 25–35%; TikTok 20–30%.
• 65+: Facebook 65–75%; YouTube 50–60%; others low.

Gender breakdown

• Overall user base: roughly 51% women, 49% men (reflects county demographics).
• Platform skews (share of each platform’s users):
  • Facebook: slight female tilt (~55% women).
  • Instagram: female-leaning (~60% women).
  • TikTok: female-leaning (~60% women).
  • Snapchat: slight female tilt (~55% women).
  • YouTube: slight male tilt (~55% men).
  • Reddit: male-leaning (~70% men).
  • Pinterest: strongly female (~75–80% women).
  • X/Twitter: male-leaning (~60% men).
  • LinkedIn: slight male tilt (~55% men).

Behavioral trends (what people actually do)

• Community and information:
  • Facebook is the civic hub: school closings, youth sports, church events, obituaries, severe-weather updates, local government notices.
  • Private/closed Facebook groups and Messenger threads are primary community channels.
• Commerce:
  • Facebook Marketplace is the default for local buy/sell/trade; deals, vehicles, tools, furniture, livestock/equipment move well.
  • Instagram Shops usage is modest; most transactions pivot to Messenger or in-person.
• Video habits:
  • YouTube for how‑to, repairs, hunting/fishing, gardening, gospel/country music, and local sports highlights.
  • Short-form video growth via TikTok and Facebook Reels; younger users favor TikTok, older stick to Facebook video.
• Messaging:
  • Messenger and Snapchat dominate 1:1 and small-group messaging; SMS remains common as a fallback.
• Content style that performs:
  • “Faces and places” (recognizable locals, teams, churches, small businesses), straight-to-the-point captions, and clear calls to action.
  • Giveaways, event reminders, severe-weather prep, and practical tips get strong engagement.
• Trust and influence:
  • Posts from friends, pastors, coaches, teachers, and local agencies carry outsized credibility versus national sources.
• Timing:
  • Peaks: evenings 7–10 p.m.; secondary peaks at lunch; weekend surges around ballgames and after church on Sundays.
• Access constraints:
  • Some users manage data carefully; shorter videos and image carousels load better than long HD streams.

Notes on uncertainty

• County-level platform data isn’t published; figures above are modeled from national/rural patterns and Kentucky demographics to provide realistic planning ranges.