Benzie County

Here are concise, current demographics for Benzie County, Michigan.

Population

• Total: 17,970 (2020 Decennial Census)
• Most recent Census estimate: about 18.1k (2023 Population Estimates Program)

Age

• Median age: about 50 years
• Under 18: ~19%
• 18 to 64: ~54%
• 65 and over: ~27% (Source: ACS 2018–2022 5-year estimates)

Gender

• Female: ~51%
• Male: ~49% (Source: ACS 2018–2022)

Race and ethnicity

• White (alone): ~94%
• Black or African American (alone): ~0.5%
• American Indian/Alaska Native (alone): ~1%
• Asian (alone): ~0.5%
• Some other race (alone): ~0.5%
• Two or more races: ~3–4%
• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~3% (Note: Hispanic can be of any race; figures may not sum to 100%. Source: ACS 2018–2022)

Households

• Total households: ~7,700
• Average household size: ~2.3
• Family households: ~63% of households
• Married-couple households: ~50% of all households
• Households with children under 18: ~23%
• Households with someone age 65+: ~35–36% (Source: ACS 2018–2022)

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; American Community Survey (ACS) 2018–2022 5-year estimates; Population Estimates Program (2023).

Benzie County, MI snapshot (estimates)

• Population: 18K. Low-density rural county (50–60 people/sq mi), with towns like Frankfort/Beulah more connected than outlying areas.
• Email users: ~12K–14K residents (driven by broadband adoption in the 75–82% household range and email use among most internet users).
• Age mix of email users (share using email):
  • Teens (13–17): high via school accounts
  • 18–29: ~95–99%
  • 30–49: ~95–99%
  • 50–64: ~90–95%
  • 65+: ~75–85%
  • Given Benzie’s older demographics, roughly 45–50% of email users are 50+.
• Gender split: Near parity; roughly 49% male, 51% female among users.
• Digital access trends:
  • Best fixed broadband (cable/fiber) in/near Frankfort, Beulah, and along US‑31/M‑115; more gaps in forested and lakeshore areas.
  • DSL and fixed wireless remain important outside towns; 5G/LTE strongest along highway corridors.
  • 10–15% of households are smartphone‑only; 15–20% have limited/no home internet.
  • Connectivity improving with ongoing rural fiber builds funded by state/federal programs (e.g., BEAD), plus expanded fixed wireless.

Summary: Mobile phone usage in Benzie County, MI is high but a bit below Michigan averages, with more people relying on cellular as their primary home internet, older age-driven adoption gaps, and more pronounced coverage and capacity issues due to rural terrain and heavy seasonal tourism. 5G is present but the faster mid-band layer is spotty outside towns, so typical speeds lag state medians.

User estimates (orders of magnitude; based on 2020 Census pop ~18k, ACS internet-subscription patterns for rural MI counties, and national smartphone adoption trends through 2023–2024)

• Adult smartphone users: roughly 12,000–13,500 residents (about 80–88% of adults, a few points under Michigan’s ~85–92%).
• Households with at least one smartphone: about 84–89% (MI: ~90–93%).
• “Smartphone-only” home internet (households relying on a cellular data plan and not maintaining cable/fiber/DSL): roughly 12–16% (MI: ~8–10%). This reflects limited wired options in parts of the county.
• Households with no internet subscription at home: roughly 15–20% (MI: ~10–13%). Some of these households still use smartphones via public Wi‑Fi or limited mobile data.
• Seasonal effect: Summer tourism and second homes can raise active devices in the county by several thousand, producing noticeable afternoon/evening congestion near lakes, beaches, and town centers.

Demographic breakdown and how it shapes usage (compared with state-level)

• Older population share: Benzie has a higher 65+ share than Michigan overall. Because older adults have lower smartphone adoption and are less likely to use multiple data-heavy apps, this pulls overall adoption and per-capita mobile data use below the state average.
• Income and smartphone-only reliance: Lower- and moderate‑income households are more likely to be smartphone‑only for home internet in Benzie than in Michigan overall, driven by gaps in wired availability and the sunset of the federal ACP subsidy in 2024. This increases dependence on prepaid or usage-capped plans.
• Seasonal/second homes: A larger share of seasonal housing than the state average leads to sharp summer peaks in device counts and data demand—patterns less pronounced statewide.
• Youth and working adults: School-year usage follows school and commuting corridors; summer shifts toward recreation areas. App mix tilts toward navigation, social/video, and hotspot use for temporary work/housing.

Digital infrastructure highlights (what differs from Michigan overall)

• Coverage
  • 4G/LTE: Generally good along US‑31, M‑115, and in/around Beulah, Benzonia, Frankfort/Elberta, Honor; more gaps in wooded interiors and around inland lakes. Coverage is less uniform than the state average.
  • 5G: Low‑band 5G is present on major corridors and towns. Mid‑band 5G (the faster layer: T‑Mobile n41, Verizon/AT&T C‑band) is patchy and mostly town‑centered; rural interiors often fall back to LTE or low‑band 5G. Michigan’s metro counties have much broader mid‑band footprints.
• Capacity and speeds
  • Typical user speeds: about 30–60 Mbps countywide with wide variance; mid‑band 5G spots can exceed 200 Mbps near towns/towers, but many rural areas see 10–30 Mbps during busy times. Michigan’s statewide medians are higher (often 80–120 Mbps in populated areas).
  • Seasonal congestion is more acute than state average—afternoons/evenings near Crystal Lake, Frankfort pierfront, and trailheads can see noticeable slowdowns.
• Sites and backhaul
  • Macro cell sites: on the order of 20–35 across the county, concentrated along US‑31/M‑115 and population centers; valleys/forests create shadow zones that would require small cells/repeaters to fill.
  • Backhaul: Fiber follows highway and utility routes; many rural sites still rely on microwave. Backhaul constraints contribute to lower peak speeds vs state metros.
• Carriers and home internet options
  • Verizon and AT&T generally offer the widest rural LTE; T‑Mobile’s 600 MHz has improved reach but fastest mid‑band still clusters near towns.
  • Fixed wireless (5G home internet) is available in and around towns but is capacity‑managed; availability drops off faster with distance than in Michigan’s larger cities.
  • Cable/fiber is present in town centers; DSL/copper and satellite serve outlying areas. This patchwork pushes a higher smartphone‑only share than the state average.
• Public access and resilience
  • Libraries and schools provide Wi‑Fi and often hotspot lending—used more intensively than state average due to the county’s wired gaps.
  • Lakeshore and forest terrain plus winter conditions can expose coverage weaknesses; public-safety roaming on major carriers is important for redundancy.

Key differences vs Michigan overall

• Slightly lower overall smartphone adoption driven by an older age profile.
• Higher reliance on smartphones as the only home internet connection.
• More coverage variability and dead zones away from highways/towns.
• Mid‑band 5G is spottier; typical speeds are lower.
• Stronger seasonal swings in traffic and congestion.

Data notes and confidence

• Estimates synthesize 2020 Census counts, ACS computer/internet subscription patterns (S2801) for rural Michigan counties through 2022–2023, FCC mobile coverage filings, and national adoption trends (Pew, 2023). Exact current county-level figures vary by census tract and carrier rollout; ranges above reflect that uncertainty.
• For planning, validate at the census‑tract level with the latest ACS 5‑year data, FCC Broadband DATA maps, and carrier-specific 5G availability tools, and consider local drive‑testing to pinpoint dead zones and peak‑time capacity constraints.

Benzie County, MI social media snapshot (estimates)

User stats

• Population: ~18,000
• Monthly social media users: ~12,000–14,000 (65–75% of residents; roughly 80–85% of adults)

Age mix among local social users

• 13–17: ~7%
• 18–29: ~14%
• 30–49: ~31%
• 50–64: ~26%
• 65+: ~22%

Gender breakdown among local social users

• Women: ~54–56%
• Men: ~44–46%
• Non-binary/unspecified: <2%

Most-used platforms (share of monthly social users)

• YouTube: ~75–80%
• Facebook: ~70–75%
• Instagram: ~38–45%
• TikTok: ~28–35%
• Snapchat: ~22–28%
• Pinterest: ~22–30% (skews female, DIY, recipes, home projects)
• LinkedIn: ~12–18% (lower due to industry mix/commute patterns)
• X (Twitter): ~10–15%
• Nextdoor: ~8–12% (varies by neighborhood density)

Behavioral trends to know

• Facebook-first community: Local groups are the hub for school updates, lost-and-found pets, road conditions, storm/power-outage info, and buy/sell/trade. Marketplace is heavily used.
• Seasonal engagement spikes:
  • Summer (tourism season): Events, trail/beach conditions, lodging/food recs, sunrise/sunset and lake content perform best; businesses run short, boosted posts and Reels.
  • Winter: Weather/road closures, school delays, snow conditions; community assistance posts (plowing, firewood) get high shares.
• Visual, place-based content wins: Scenic photos (Crystal Lake, Betsie River, Lake Michigan), wildlife, historical “then/now” images, and HS sports highlights drive comments/shares.
• Messaging for commerce: Residents commonly DM to confirm hours, table wait times, special orders, or pickup details.
• Cross-posting norms: Small businesses and nonprofits post to Facebook + Instagram together; Reels/shorts outperform static posts for reach.
• Information sourcing: Many rely on local government/sheriff/schools pages and a handful of trusted group admins/local photographers as de facto news sources.
• Younger cohorts: Teens/younger adults favor Snapchat for daily communication and TikTok/Instagram Reels for entertainment; they engage with local outdoor/adventure and sports content more than civic topics.
• Older cohorts: High Facebook and YouTube usage; long-form how-tos, meeting recordings, church services, and local history content perform well.
• Hot-button topics draw spikes: Land use, short‑term rentals, conservation, and infrastructure threads get rapid engagement; groups often moderate to maintain civility.

Notes on methodology

• County-level figures are extrapolated from recent US platform adoption (Pew Research and major platform audience tools), adjusted for Benzie’s older age profile and rural usage patterns. Treat percentages as directional ranges rather than exact counts.