Franklin County

Here are concise, recent Census-based demographics for Franklin County, Massachusetts.

Population size

• Total population: 71,143 (2020 Census)

Age

• Under 5 years: ~3.9%
• Under 18 years: ~18.4%
• 65 years and over: ~22.9%
• Median age: ~46.9 years (ACS 2018–2022)

Gender

• Female: ~50.9%
• Male: ~49.1%

Race and ethnicity (shares of total population)

• White alone: ~91.9%
• Black/African American alone: ~1.2%
• American Indian/Alaska Native alone: ~0.4%
• Asian alone: ~1.2%
• Two or more races: ~3.7%
• Hispanic/Latino (any race): ~4.0%
• White alone, not Hispanic or Latino: ~88.4%

Household data (ACS 2018–2022)

• Households: ~31,500
• Persons per household: ~2.19
• Owner-occupied housing rate: ~71–72%

Notes: Figures are from the U.S. Census Bureau (2020 Decennial Census; 2018–2022 American Community Survey; QuickFacts). Values are rounded; ACS estimates have margins of error.

Franklin County, MA email usage (estimates)

• Population baseline: ~71,000 residents; rural density ~100 people/sq mi.
• Estimated email users: ~55,000 (roughly 75–80% of residents), assuming high internet adoption and that ~90%+ of internet users use email.
• Age distribution of email users (approx. share of users):
  • 13–17: 6–8% (~3.5–4.5k)
  • 18–29: 14–16% (~7.5–9k)
  • 30–49: 28–32% (~15–18k)
  • 50–64: 25–28% (~13–16k)
  • 65+: 20–23% (~11–13k)
• Gender split among users: near-even, slight female majority (~51% female, ~49% male), reflecting county demographics.
• Digital access trends:
  • Broadband availability is now widespread after Massachusetts’ “Last Mile” buildouts; many formerly unserved hill towns gained fiber.
  • Adoption lags availability in some rural/low‑income and older households; libraries and town centers remain important Wi‑Fi hubs.
  • Smartphone‑only access is present (not dominant) and higher among lower‑income residents.
• Local connectivity facts:
  • Stronger, multi‑ISP options along the I‑91 corridor (e.g., Greenfield, Deerfield, Montague); Greenfield’s GCET offers municipal fiber.
  • More dispersed hill towns face longer drops/aerial plant vulnerabilities and outage sensitivity, though fiber expansions have markedly improved speeds and reliability.

Below is a concise, decision-useful snapshot. Figures are estimates based on 2020 Census population (~71k), typical U.S./MA mobile adoption patterns, rural New England infrastructure characteristics, and Western MA broadband buildouts. Use as directional; validate before planning.

Quick snapshot (Franklin County vs Massachusetts overall)

• Estimated mobile users: 50–58k unique smartphone users (county), assuming somewhat lower adult adoption than MA’s urbanized average. Total active mobile lines likely 65–85k (some residents carry multiple lines; IoT lines present), below MA’s per-capita line intensity.
• Adoption profile: High overall smartphone adoption but a few points lower than state average; higher basic/feature-phone retention among older residents.
• Carriers: Verizon tends to be strongest for rural coverage; AT&T solid along major corridors; T‑Mobile improving but more variable off-corridor. 5G mid-band is concentrated along I‑91 towns; hill towns remain patchier.
• Distinct from state: Slower 5G build, more dead zones, older median age driving slightly lower app/data intensity, and greater reliance on municipal fiber where available.

Demographic breakdown (usage tendencies)

• Age
  • Teens (13–17): Very high smartphone penetration, heavy social/video use; overall share of county population is smaller than in urban MA, so the “youth-driven” data spike is less pronounced countywide.
  • 18–34: Smaller college influence than neighboring Hampshire County; mobile usage solid but below the Boston/Cambridge app-economy intensity.
  • 35–54: Strong smartphone use; family data plans common; commuting mostly by car (vs transit), shifting mobile time to in-vehicle audio and navigation rather than continuous video.
  • 55–64 and 65+: Larger share than statewide; higher proportions on basic plans or older devices, more voice/text, telehealth and messaging growth; slower upgrade cycles.
• Income/plan mix
  • Median household income below MA average; translates to slightly higher prepaid/MVNO share and longer device refresh intervals than Boston-area norms.
• Language/ethnicity
  • Less linguistic diversity than the MA average; international-calling plan demand is lower than in gateway cities, but pockets of farm, tourism, and service workers use low-cost cross-border apps and prepaid offerings.

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• Topography: Hills and river valleys create shadowing; indoor coverage can be inconsistent away from town centers.
• Corridors: I‑91, US‑5/10, MA‑2, and population centers like Greenfield, Turners Falls, Deerfield, and Orange have the most reliable LTE and expanding 5G. Performance drops in sparsely populated hill towns (e.g., Hawley, Heath, Rowe, Monroe, Leyden, Warwick, New Salem, Charlemont in spots).
• 5G: Predominantly low/mid-band along the I‑91 spine and town centers; mmWave is rare to nonexistent. This contrasts with MA metro areas where mid-band density and mmWave hotspots are common.
• Backhaul/fiber: State middle-mile (MassBroadband 123) plus multiple municipal/MLP fiber builds in small towns have materially improved home broadband. Where municipal FTTH exists, households lean on Wi‑Fi at home and keep smaller mobile data buckets; where it’s absent or costly, some households rely on mobile hotspots as primary internet.
• Public safety/enterprise: Rural first responders prioritize coverage reliability; network choices skew to carriers with proven rural footprint. Enterprise mobility is concentrated in healthcare, education, light manufacturing, agriculture, and tourism/recreation.

Usage patterns and behaviors

• Data intensity: Slightly lower average mobile data per user than MA urban averages, driven by older demographics and more time spent in low-signal areas. Peak-use apps skew toward messaging, navigation, audio streaming/podcasts, social media; mobile video growth is steady but tempered by coverage and data-plan economics.
• Wi‑Fi offload: High where municipal fiber is deployed; lower offload and higher hotspot usage in still-unserved or expensive-wireline pockets.
• Device mix: More older handsets in active use vs state average; eSIM/MVNO adoption rising but lagging metro MA.
• Seasonal spikes: Tourism (foliage, ski at Berkshire East/Charlemont, river recreation), fairs, and festivals (e.g., Greenfield) create localized capacity crunches that are less predictable than daily commuter peaks seen in metro MA.

How Franklin County differs most from state-level trends

• Coverage and 5G: Slower mid-band 5G rollout and more LTE dependence; materially more coverage gaps than Greater Boston/Worcester/Springfield metros.
• Demographics: Older age structure reduces cutting-edge device penetration and ultra-high data use; upgrade cycles are longer.
• Plan economics: Slightly higher prepaid/MVNO share; more conservative data allowances; hotspot reliance where wireline is weak.
• Mobility context: Car-based travel dominates (vs transit in metro areas), shifting usage to audio/navigation over continuous video; fewer large campuses reduces youth-driven peaks.
• Infrastructure mix: Unique prevalence of municipal fiber in small towns changes mobile vs home-internet balance more than in most MA counties.

Rough sizing assumptions used

• Population ~71k; adult share ~78–80%.
• Adult smartphone adoption a few points below statewide urban average; high teen adoption; multiple-line ownership boosts total line counts.

Franklin County, MA social media snapshot (short)

Population baseline

• Residents: ~71,000; adults (18+): ~57,000 (ACS estimates)
• Overall reach: roughly 72–78% of adults use at least one major social platform; most use 2–3

Most-used platforms (adult penetration; county-level estimates)

• YouTube: 80% (46k adults)
• Facebook: 70% (40k)
• Instagram: 42% (24k)
• Pinterest: 33% (19k)
• TikTok: 28% (16k)
• Snapchat: 24% (14k)
• LinkedIn: 24% (14k)
• WhatsApp: 22% (13k)
• X/Twitter: 18% (10k)
• Reddit: 17% (10k)
• Nextdoor: 12% (7k)

Age-group usage (tendencies)

• 18–29: Near-universal YouTube; heavy Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat; Facebook mostly for groups/events
• 30–49: Facebook and YouTube dominant; Instagram strong; WhatsApp moderate; some TikTok/Snapchat
• 50–64: Facebook and YouTube primary; Pinterest notable; some LinkedIn; limited TikTok/Instagram
• 65+: Facebook first, YouTube second; light Instagram/Pinterest; minimal TikTok/Snapchat

Gender pattern (platform mix)

• Women over-index on Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest
• Men over-index on YouTube, Reddit, X
• LinkedIn relatively balanced; WhatsApp varies by community ties
• Overall usage rates are similar by gender; mix differs

Behavioral trends observed in similar rural/older MA counties

• Facebook is the local hub: town gov pages, school closings, weather, road updates, lost/found, yard sales, buy/sell/trade, community events
• Groups > Pages: neighborhood and town groups drive reach and discussion; Events used to mobilize attendance
• Video consumption > creation: short-form video (Reels/TikTok) is widely watched; creation concentrated among younger users and local orgs
• Instagram for arts/food/tourism: farms, breweries, venues, outdoor rec, and foliage season content perform well; Stories used for promos
• Limited X/Twitter for local news; activists and government staff maintain small but active presences
• Messaging: Facebook Messenger is common; WhatsApp used in specific networks; DMs increasingly handle customer service and sales
• Best engagement: safety/weather alerts, school/town decisions, pet reunification, photo-heavy event posts, and hyperlocal tips
• Advertising: small businesses boost Facebook/Instagram posts for events and seasonal offers; TikTok ads used selectively to reach younger audiences

Notes on method and uncertainty

• County-specific surveys are scarce. Figures above are estimates created by applying Pew Research Center’s 2024 U.S. platform adoption rates to Franklin County’s adult population and adjusting slightly for its older/rural profile (ACS). Expect platform percentages to be within a few points of the ranges shown.
• Sources to consult/validate: Pew Research Center (Social Media Use in 2024), U.S. Census/ACS (Franklin County population and age structure), platform ad planners for local reach checks.