Madison County

Key demographics for Madison County, Kentucky

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (2020 Decennial Census; American Community Survey 2019–2023 5-year estimates; Population Estimates Program, Vintage 2023)

• Population

  • 2020 Census: 92,987
  • 2023 estimate: ~95,000–96,000 (continued moderate growth)

• Age

  • Median age: ~33–34 years (younger than Kentucky overall, reflecting Eastern Kentucky University)
  • Distribution (ACS 2019–2023):
    • Under 18: ~20–21%
    • 18–24: ~16–17%
    • 25–44: ~28–29%
    • 45–64: ~20–21%
    • 65+: ~13–14%

• Sex (ACS 2019–2023)

  • Female: ~50–51%
  • Male: ~49–50%

• Race/ethnicity (ACS 2019–2023; Hispanic is any race)

  • White, non-Hispanic: ~84–86%
  • Black or African American, non-Hispanic: ~6–7%
  • Hispanic/Latino (any race): ~4–5%
  • Asian, non-Hispanic: ~1–2%
  • Two or more races, non-Hispanic: ~3%
  • Other (including AIAN, NHPI), non-Hispanic: <1%

• Households (ACS 2019–2023)

  • Total households: ~38,000–39,000
  • Average household size: ~2.4
  • Family households: ~58–60% of households
  • Married-couple families: ~40–42% of households
  • Households with children under 18: ~26–28%
  • One-person households: ~30–32%
  • Average family size: ~3.0

Insights

• The county is growing and relatively young compared with the state, influenced by the student population.
• Household structure skews slightly toward nonfamily and one-person households versus state averages.
• Racial/ethnic composition is predominantly White with gradual diversification, notably modest growth in Hispanic and multiracial populations.

Madison County, KY email landscape (2025 snapshot)

• Estimated email users: ~80,000 residents. Method: county population ≈93–95k; adult share ≈78%; email adoption ≈90% among adults plus substantial teen usage.
• Age distribution of email users (approximate share of users): 13–17: 8%; 18–24: 17% (elevated by EKU presence); 25–44: 33%; 45–64: 26%; 65+: 16%.
• Gender split among users: ~51% female, ~49% male, mirroring the county’s population.
• Digital access and devices:
  • ~93% of households have a computer.
  • ~86% of households have a broadband subscription; ~13% are smartphone‑only for internet.
  • Home internet gaps concentrate in rural southeastern tracts; urban cores (Richmond, Berea) show near‑universal access with cable/fiber options.
• Local density/connectivity facts:
  • Population density ≈210 people/sq mi (county area ≈440+ sq mi; population ~93–95k).
  • Most residents cluster along the I‑75 corridor (Richmond–Berea), benefiting from strong fixed broadband and 5G coverage; rural areas have fewer wired options, which slightly suppresses email adoption among older and lower‑income households.

Insights: Email usage is effectively ubiquitous among working‑age and student populations; gaps align with the small share lacking home broadband or relying solely on mobile data.

Mobile phone usage in Madison County, Kentucky: key estimates, demographic patterns, and infrastructure, with emphasis on how the county differs from statewide trends.

Headline estimates (synthesized from recent ACS “Computer and Internet Use” patterns, FCC mobility coverage filings, and Pew mobile adoption benchmarks applied to local age/income mix):

• Mobile phone users: roughly 70,000–80,000 residents use a mobile phone on a typical day, with 60,000–70,000 using smartphones. The range reflects inclusion of teens and the county’s unusually large college population (Eastern Kentucky University and Berea College).
• Household cellular data subscriptions: on the order of 60–70% of households maintain a cellular data plan (either smartphone plans or dedicated hotspots), with a noticeably higher share in the cities of Richmond and Berea than in rural precincts.
• Mobile-only internet households: approximately 12–18% of households rely primarily on cellular for home internet (smartphone tethering or hotspots), several points higher than Kentucky’s statewide share due to student renters and a sizeable renter population in the two college towns.

Demographic breakdown and usage patterns (how Madison County diverges from Kentucky overall)

• Age:
  • 18–29: Very high smartphone adoption (≈95%) and heavier “smartphone-only” dependence for broadband. Madison County’s sizable student/young-adult population raises the county’s smartphone-only share above the Kentucky average by several percentage points.
  • 30–64: Adoption and plan attachment mirror statewide levels, but with higher data consumption in employment centers around Richmond.
  • 65+: Adoption lags younger cohorts but is boosted in the county’s urban areas by better device access, retail presence, and healthcare portals that encourage mobile use; this narrows the age gap slightly relative to rural parts of Kentucky.
• Income and housing:
  • Lower-income and renter households—concentrated around campus areas—show a higher propensity to be mobile-only for home internet than the statewide norm. Prepaid and MVNO plans have a larger footprint in these tracts than Kentucky overall.
• Race/ethnicity:
  • Patterns align with national trends (people of color somewhat more likely to be smartphone-dependent for internet). Given Madison County’s moderate diversity, this contributes to the above-average mobile-only share but does not dominate the county variance the way the age/housing mix does.
• Urban–rural split inside the county:
  • Richmond/Berea census tracts have high device and plan penetration, faster 5G service, and dense Wi‑Fi offload (campus, retail). Southern and eastern rural tracts show more signal variability and a higher incidence of cellular-as-primary internet where fixed options are sparse, a contrast that is sharper than Kentucky’s average county because Madison combines two dense college towns with fringe rural terrain.

Digital infrastructure and coverage (distinctive local factors)

• Carrier presence: AT&T, T‑Mobile, and Verizon all operate 4G LTE and 5G NR in the I‑75 corridor and population centers; FirstNet (AT&T) supports public safety. Competitive overlap in Richmond and Berea is stronger than in many Kentucky counties, supporting higher median mobile speeds and capacity.
• 5G footprint: Sub‑6 GHz 5G covers the I‑75 corridor and city cores; mmWave, where present, is limited to small venues. The county’s 5G availability and usable mid-band capacity in urban tracts exceed the statewide rural average.
• Corridor effect: I‑75 bisects the county, driving macro-site density, fiber backhaul, and rapid upgrades; this produces a more pronounced urban–rural performance gap locally than Kentucky’s statewide average.
• Backhaul and middle mile: The Richmond–Berea area benefits from multiple fiber backbones (including KentuckyWired middle‑mile interconnects and commercial fiber from cable and telco operators), which supports mobile site capacity and campus small-cell deployments.
• Public Wi‑Fi and offload: EKU and Berea College networks, libraries, and municipal/retail Wi‑Fi create substantial traffic offload in city centers, contributing to higher device penetration and lower effective cost of mobile data for students—again a differentiator versus the state.
• Coverage gaps: Outside the corridor and city cores, rolling terrain and pockets near the county’s southern/eastern edges produce spotty indoor coverage in hollows; households in these areas more frequently report using external antennas, boosters, or switching carriers—an intra-county disparity sharper than Kentucky’s average.

What this means for Madison County relative to Kentucky

• Higher smartphone and cellular plan penetration in urban tracts, a larger share of mobile-only households, and heavier prepaid/MVNO usage—largely driven by student and renter demographics—set Madison County above the statewide averages on mobile dependence.
• Faster adoption and better 5G capacity where people live and work (Richmond/Berea, I‑75) but more pronounced performance and reliability gaps in rural precincts than the typical Kentucky county.
• Policy and market implications: investments that extend mid-band 5G and fixed wireless to rural edges, plus in‑building coverage solutions for multi‑tenant student housing, will yield outsized benefits locally; campus and corridor fiber backhaul is already strong and can support further densification.

Note on method: The figures above are point estimates and ranges synthesized from recent federal survey patterns (ACS “Computer and Internet Use,” FCC mobility coverage, and Pew adoption studies) adjusted for the county’s age/housing profile and known infrastructure corridor effects. They are designed to be decision-useful and to highlight how Madison County’s college‑anchored urban cores and surrounding rural areas produce a different mobile usage profile than Kentucky overall.

Social media usage in Madison County, KY (short breakdown)

How these figures were derived: County population and age structure are from recent Census/ACS profiles; platform adoption rates use the latest national Pew Research Center social media benchmarks, adjusted for Madison County’s age mix (college-influenced 18–24 cohort plus a sizable 45+ base). All user counts below are estimates for adults (18+).

Headline user stats

• Adult population: approximately 72,000–74,000
• Adults using at least one social platform: ~60,000 (≈82% penetration)
• Daily social media users (any platform): ~42,000–45,000 (≈58–62% of adults; ≈70–75% of social users)
• Device mix: predominantly mobile-first; video is the top content format across ages

Most-used platforms among adults (share of adults; approximate local estimates)

• YouTube: 82% (~59k)
• Facebook: 72% (~53k)
• Instagram: 48% (~35k)
• TikTok: 35% (~26k)
• Pinterest: 33% (~24k)
• Snapchat: 31% (~23k)
• LinkedIn: 24% (~17k)
• X (Twitter): 20% (~15k)
• WhatsApp: 23% (~17k)
• Reddit: 20% (~15k)

Age-group profile (local estimates; percent of each age group using the platform)

• 18–24: Any social 95%+; YouTube ~95; Instagram ~75; Snapchat ~68; TikTok ~65; Facebook ~58
• 25–34: Any social ~90%; YouTube ~90; Facebook ~68; Instagram ~60; TikTok ~45; Snapchat ~40
• 35–54: Any social ~82–85%; YouTube ~85; Facebook ~74; Instagram ~45–50; TikTok ~25–30
• 55+: Any social ~60–65%; YouTube ~70; Facebook ~62–68; Instagram ~20–30; TikTok ~10–15

Gender breakdown (adults)

• Overall social media users: roughly 52% women, 48% men (reflecting the county’s slight female majority and small female-skew in platform uptake)
• Platform skews: Facebook and Instagram lean slightly female; Pinterest is heavily female; YouTube, Reddit, and X lean male; TikTok near-balanced with a slight female tilt

Behavioral trends observed locally

• Facebook remains the community backbone: high engagement in local groups (schools, city/county updates, buy–sell–trade, events), plus strong reach for municipal pages and small businesses
• College influence (EKU and Berea) elevates Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok usage among 18–24, with short-form video and Stories/Reels as primary engagement drivers
• Video-first consumption across all ages: YouTube for how‑to, local sports, and regional news; Reels/Shorts/TikTok for entertainment and campus life
• Messaging-centric behavior: Facebook Messenger ubiquitous; Snapchat is a primary communication channel for under‑35; WhatsApp present but secondary
• Best engagement windows: evenings and weekends; announcements tied to school calendars, weather, sports, and local events outperform generic content
• Commerce and calls-to-action: “Message to order,” “Call now,” and event RSVPs on Facebook/Instagram convert better than link-outs; locally relevant offers and community tie-ins outperform national creative

Key takeaways

• To reach most adults quickly, lead with Facebook and YouTube; add Instagram for under‑40 and TikTok/Snapchat for campus/young adult audiences
• Keep creative video-first, locally grounded, and mobile-optimized; use Facebook Groups and Events for community penetration
• Schedule for evening/weekend peaks; pair organic community content with light paid boosts for reliable local reach