Essex County

Essex County, Massachusetts – key demographics

• Population: 809,829 (2020 Census)

Age (ACS 2018–2022)

• Median age: ≈40.6 years
• Under 18: ≈21%
• 65 and over: ≈17%

Sex (ACS 2018–2022)

• Female: ≈51.6%
• Male: ≈48.4%

Race/ethnicity (ACS 2018–2022; Hispanic can be any race)

• White, non-Hispanic: ≈62%
• Hispanic/Latino: ≈25%
• Black/African American, non-Hispanic: ≈4%
• Asian, non-Hispanic: ≈4%
• Two or more races, non-Hispanic: ≈4%
• Other races, non-Hispanic: <1% (Note: sums may round to ~100%.)

Households and housing (ACS 2018–2022)

• Households: ≈310,000
• Average household size: ≈2.6
• Family households: ≈64% of households
• Tenure: ≈62% owner-occupied, ≈38% renter-occupied
• Median household income: ≈$92,000

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; American Community Survey 2018–2022 5-year estimates.

Summary for Essex County, MA

• Estimated email users: ~600,000 (roughly 70–75% of total residents; ≈90% of adults). Based on county population ~0.8M, ACS population shares, and Pew email adoption rates.
• Age distribution of email use (approx., mirrors U.S. patterns):
  • 18–29: 95%+
  • 30–49: 95%+
  • 50–64: 90–95%
  • 65+: 75–85%
• Gender split: Near parity; both men and women ~90%+ email adoption among adults.
• Digital access trends:
  • ~90% of households have a broadband subscription (ACS-style estimates for MA counties); smartphone ownership ~80–90% (Pew U.S. range), enabling near-universal email access among working-age adults.
  • Post‑2020 remote work and school increased reliance on home broadband and mobile email; “smartphone‑only” households persist among lower‑income and older residents.
  • Public libraries, colleges, and municipal hotspots supplement access in town centers.
• Local density/connectivity facts:
  • Essex is a densely settled North Shore county with major hubs (Lynn, Lawrence, Haverhill, Salem) and suburban corridors along I‑95/Route 128 and I‑93.
  • MBTA commuter rail (Newburyport/Rockport and Haverhill lines) and extensive cable/fiber along these corridors support high internet availability; more peripheral northern/rural pockets see relatively lower speeds/choices.

Below is a concise, planning-oriented view of mobile phone usage in Essex County, MA, with best-available estimates and a focus on how local patterns diverge from statewide norms.

Topline user estimates

• Population baseline: ~810–830k residents; ~620–650k adults.
• Mobile users (any mobile phone line): ~700–780k lines in service countywide, reflecting multi-line households and some youth ownership.
• Smartphone users: ~560–600k adult smartphone users (roughly 88–92% adult adoption; MA tends to be a few points above national averages).
• 5G-capable handsets: ~65–75% of smartphones (slightly below Greater Boston’s core due to older device mix in lower-income areas).
• Mobile-only (smartphone-dependent) internet households: countywide on the order of low-to-mid teens percent, with pockets in gateway cities (e.g., Lawrence, Lynn) well above the state average.

Demographic patterns that differ from Massachusetts overall

• Income and affordability: Essex’s gateway cities have a higher share of prepaid plans and smartphone-only internet reliance than the state average, driven by affordability constraints and rental housing. This increases mobile data dependence versus wireline broadband.
• Language and ethnicity: Larger Hispanic/Latino communities in Lawrence and parts of Lynn show above-average smartphone dependence (consistent with national trends), leading to higher mobile data use for everyday access and communications.
• Age: Youth and young adults are near-universal smartphone users. The county’s older-adult share is similar to the state, but older residents in coastal and semi-rural towns show slightly lower adoption of 5G-capable devices than peers in the Boston core.
• Housing pattern: More triple-deckers and dense wood-frame multifamily in older mill and coastal cities can create indoor signal challenges; residents in these buildings rely more on Wi‑Fi calling and repeaters than typical statewide.

Digital infrastructure notes (what stands out locally)

• Coverage and topography: LTE is strong in cities and along I‑95, I‑93, Route 1, and Route 128, but there are more noticeable weak spots than the state average in semi-rural northern towns (e.g., Boxford, Topsfield, parts of Ipswich/Essex) and in marshy/coastal areas where terrain and siting constraints complicate radio propagation.
• 5G footprint: Mid-band 5G is broadly available in larger population centers (Lynn, Salem, Peabody, Beverly, Haverhill, Methuen, Lawrence) and along major corridors, but densification lags Boston/Cambridge/Somerville. mmWave is limited to select high-traffic commercial nodes; most performance gains come from mid-band spectrum.
• Backhaul and wireline context: Cable broadband (Xfinity) is near-ubiquitous; fiber-to-the-home is available in pockets (Verizon FiOS and smaller builds) but is not as uniformly dense as in the inner core of Greater Boston. This patchiness correlates with higher smartphone-only reliance in certain tracts compared to the state.
• Seasonal load: Coastal tourism (Salem, Gloucester, Rockport, Newburyport) and beach traffic drive pronounced weekend/seasonal peaks, creating more variable cell congestion than the state average, especially on summer afternoons and event weekends.
• Commuter patterns: With fewer subway/underground environments than Suffolk/Middlesex, Essex usage concentrates around highways, MBTA commuter rail corridors, schools, hospitals, and industrial parks. Peak-hour mobility demands along corridors can exceed typical suburban patterns elsewhere in MA.

Trends that diverge from statewide norms

• Higher smartphone-only dependence in gateway cities than the state overall, tied to affordability and housing, even as total smartphone adoption remains high.
• More pronounced coverage variability: Essex mixes dense mill cities, coastal towns, and semi-rural interiors, so it shows bigger urban-to-rural swings than the state average east of I‑495.
• Slightly older handset mix in lower-income areas versus the Boston core, slowing countywide 5G device penetration relative to the statewide average.
• Stronger seasonality in traffic and congestion due to coastal tourism, unlike most inland MA counties.
• Network densification is ongoing but generally trails the inner core; indoor coverage solutions (small cells, Wi‑Fi calling) are more critical in older multifamily stock.

Notes on sources and method

• Estimates synthesize: U.S. Census/ACS “Computer and Internet Use” (e.g., S2801), county population totals, national and Massachusetts smartphone adoption from reputable research (e.g., Pew), and public carrier performance/coverage reporting. Where county-specific figures are sparse, ranges are provided and anchored to Massachusetts’ tendency to test above national averages, adjusted for Essex’s demographics and land-use mix.

Social media usage in Essex County, MA — short breakdown

Context and base

• Population: about 820,000; adults (18+) ~640,000.
• Figures below are modeled from recent Pew Research Center U.S. adoption rates (2023–2024) and typical suburban Northeast patterns applied to Essex County’s adult population. Treat as approximate (±3–5 percentage points). Counts are not mutually exclusive (people use multiple platforms).

Most-used platforms (share of adults; estimated local counts)

• YouTube: 80–85% (~510k–545k)
• Facebook: 65–70% (~415k–450k)
• Instagram: 45–50% (~290k–320k)
• TikTok: 30–35% (~190k–225k)
• Pinterest: 30–35% (~190k–225k)
• LinkedIn: 28–32% (~180k–205k)
• Snapchat: 25–35% (~160k–225k; higher near colleges)
• WhatsApp: 20–25% (~130k–160k; higher in Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking communities)
• X (Twitter): 20–25% (~130k–160k)
• Reddit: 20–25% (~130k–160k)
• Nextdoor: 12–18% (~75k–115k; strongest in homeowner suburbs)

Age-group patterns (who uses what, roughly)

• 18–29: YouTube 90%+; Instagram/Snapchat ~70–80%; TikTok ~60–70%; Facebook ~50–60%.
• 30–49: YouTube ~90%; Facebook ~70–75%; Instagram ~50–55%; TikTok/Snapchat ~25–35%; LinkedIn ~35–45%.
• 50–64: YouTube ~80–85%; Facebook ~70–75%; Instagram ~25–35%; TikTok ~10–20%; Pinterest ~25–35%.
• 65+: Facebook ~50–60%; YouTube ~45–55%; Instagram <20%; TikTok/Snapchat <10%.

Gender breakdown (county and platform skews)

• County population is roughly 51% female, 49% male; overall social media adoption is similar by gender.
• Platform skews:
  • More female: Pinterest (about 2:1 F/M), Facebook (slight female tilt), Instagram (slight female tilt).
  • More male: Reddit and X (Twitter) skew male; YouTube slightly male.
  • Balanced: TikTok, Snapchat, LinkedIn are near even overall (with age-driven differences).

Behavioral trends observed locally

• Neighborhood info: Strong reliance on Facebook Groups and Nextdoor for town issues (schools, snow emergencies, parking bans), especially in homeowner-heavy towns (Andover, North Andover, Marblehead, Beverly, Newburyport).
• Bilingual/community use: Higher WhatsApp and Facebook usage among Spanish-speaking households (notably in Lawrence) and Brazilian/Portuguese communities; bilingual posts perform better for civic info and local services.
• Commerce and recommendations: Facebook Marketplace, town swap/yard-sale groups, and Instagram stories drive local buying; restaurant and service discovery leans on Instagram Reels and TikTok.
• Youth/college pockets: Salem State, Endicott, Merrimack influence spikes in Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok around campus-life and nightlife content.
• Seasonal spikes: October tourism and events in Salem sharply lift Instagram/TikTok/Reels usage and local hashtag traction; coastal storms also boost real-time Facebook/Nextdoor engagement.
• Timing: Evening hours (7–10 pm) and commuter windows see higher engagement; weekends favor lifestyle/food content.

Notes on methodology and sources

• Platform percentages derive from Pew Research Center’s Social Media Use (2023–2024) applied to Essex County’s adult base from recent ACS population estimates; Nextdoor is an estimate based on suburban adoption patterns. For precision at campaign level, validate with platform ad-reach tools targeted to Essex County and short local surveys/polls.