Cass County

Cass County, Michigan — key demographics (latest Census/ACS estimates)

• Population size:

  • ~51,000 residents (2023 estimate)
  • 51,589 (2020 Census)

• Age:

  • Median age: ~44 years
  • Under 18: ~22%
  • 65 and over: ~21%

• Gender:

  • Female: ~50%

• Race/ethnicity (alone unless noted; Hispanic can be any race):

  • White: ~85%
  • Black or African American: ~6%
  • American Indian and Alaska Native: ~0.6%
  • Asian: ~0.6–1%
  • Two or more races: ~7%
  • Hispanic/Latino (any race): ~5%
  • White, not Hispanic: ~82%

• Household data:

  • Households: ~21,000
  • Average household size: ~2.45 persons

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2020 Decennial Census; 2019–2023 American Community Survey 5-year; QuickFacts, 2023 population estimate). Exact, latest figures available on request.

Cass County, MI snapshot (estimates)

• Population: ~51,500. Households with broadband: ~80–85%. Residents without home internet: ~12–18%. Email use among internet users is near‑universal (≈90%+).
• Estimated email users: ~38,000–42,000 residents.
• Age distribution of email users (driven by local age mix and national adoption):
  • Teens (13–17): ~5–8%
  • 18–34: ~25–30%
  • 35–54: ~35–40%
  • 55–64: ~12–15%
  • 65+: ~15–20% (adoption lower than younger groups but still majority)
• Gender split: roughly even (county population ~49% male, ~51% female); email usage rates are similar by gender.
• Digital access trends:
  • Fiber and fixed wireless coverage expanding from local providers; fastest adoption near towns (Dowagiac, Edwardsburg, Cassopolis) and lake communities.
  • Smartphone‑only access likely ~10–15% of households; public/library Wi‑Fi remains important for some residents.
  • 5G/4G covers main corridors (e.g., US‑12, M‑60), with patchier service in rural/southern townships.
• Local density/connectivity context: Population density ~100 people/sq mi (rural vs Michigan’s ~177), which correlates with more sparse wired options outside population centers.

Notes: Figures combine 2020 Census/ACS county metrics with national email adoption (Pew) to derive local estimates.

Cass County, Michigan: mobile phone usage summary (with county-specific trends)

How this was built

• Base population: about 51,000 residents; roughly 39,000–41,000 adults.
• Adoption rates derived from Pew/NHIS national benchmarks, adjusted for rural/older-age profile and local infrastructure conditions.
• Infrastructure points reflect carrier public maps/announcements and known regional providers; figures are directional estimates.

User estimates

• Adults using any mobile phone: 36,000–39,000 (around 92–95% of adults).
• Adult smartphone users: 32,000–35,000 (about 82–86% of adults). Seniors (65+) show lower adoption; more basic-phone retention than state average.
• Households without a landline (wireless-only voice): roughly 70–75% of households, in line with national rural norms but slightly below Michigan’s metro-heavy average.
• Households relying primarily on a smartphone for home internet (“smartphone-only”): 18–22% of households, higher than the statewide share; this has been easing where fiber has arrived but remains elevated in lake/wooded townships.
• Typical mobile data use: similar to national averages overall, but notably higher among smartphone-only households; summer spikes around lakes and campgrounds.

Demographic patterns that shape usage

• Older age structure than Michigan overall: median age is several years higher than the state, which depresses smartphone adoption and app-centric behaviors relative to Michigan’s metros.
• Income: median household income is modestly below the state average. That supports higher use of prepaid/MVNO plans (e.g., Straight Talk, Cricket, Metro) and slower uptake of premium 5G devices compared with the state.
• Education levels below the state average correlate with more mobile-only internet reliance for job search, messaging, and entertainment.
• Geography and seasonality: a largely rural county with small towns (e.g., Dowagiac, Cassopolis, Edwardsburg) and many inland lakes. Seasonal population surges drive temporary capacity strain; indoor coverage can be uneven around wooded/lake areas.
• Cross-border ties: commuting and commerce with South Bend/Elkhart, IN, influence carrier performance and roaming; Indiana market buildouts spill over into the county’s southwest.

Digital infrastructure highlights

• 4G/LTE: broadly available along highways and in towns; dead zones persist in low-lying, heavily wooded, and lakeshore areas away from major corridors.
• 5G:
  • Low-band 5G from all national carriers is present on main corridors and in population centers.
  • Mid-band 5G (T-Mobile n41; Verizon/AT&T C-band) is patchier than the state average, strongest near the state line and town centers; interior rural townships have spottier mid-band coverage.
  • mmWave is largely absent, unlike in Michigan’s big metros.
• Backhaul and fiber:
  • A major differentiator is Midwest Energy & Communications (MEC), headquartered in Cass County, which has built extensive rural fiber. This has improved home broadband options and strengthened tower backhaul in much of the county.
  • Cable broadband is available in parts of towns; legacy DSL remains in pockets but is declining where fiber has been built.
• Public connectivity: libraries, schools, and municipal buildings provide important Wi‑Fi access points used by mobile-first residents; coverage gaps drive reliance on Wi‑Fi calling and signal boosters in some homes.
• Emergency services: Text-to-911 is available statewide; in-building cellular reliability varies by carrier in rural areas.

How Cass County differs from Michigan overall

• Slightly lower smartphone adoption and a larger basic/feature-phone cohort due to older age and rural settlement patterns.
• Higher share of smartphone-only internet users than the statewide average, reflecting historic gaps in wired broadband—though this is improving faster than in many rural Michigan counties because of MEC’s aggressive fiber build.
• Carrier performance skews toward providers with stronger rural low-band footprints; T-Mobile gains where mid-band is lit on US-12/M-62, but Verizon/AT&T tend to be more consistent away from corridors. Statewide, the balance is more even in metros.
• Mid-band 5G availability is materially less consistent than in Michigan’s urban counties; speeds and capacity vary more by location and time of day.
• Greater seasonality: summer lake traffic produces sharper, short-term mobile network congestion than the statewide norm.
• Cross-border influence from the South Bend/Elkhart market is stronger here than in most Michigan counties, affecting coverage patterns, device provisioning, and roaming behaviors.

Implications

• Mobile remains the default connectivity for many residents, but fiber expansion is shifting heavy data use off cellular where available.
• For service planning, prioritize: mid-band 5G infill away from corridors; in-building coverage near lakes; and capacity augments for summer peaks.
• Outreach on affordable connectivity and device upgrade programs can narrow the smartphone adoption gap among seniors and low-income households.

Notes and uncertainty

• Figures are modeled estimates; local surveys or carrier drive tests would refine adoption and coverage specifics by township and lake community.

Below is a concise, locally tuned snapshot based on U.S. Census (Cass County population) and Pew Research Center’s 2024 U.S. social media usage rates, scaled to Cass County’s size and older/rural profile. Exact county-level platform data isn’t published; figures are best estimates.

Quick snapshot

• Population: ~51,500 (Cass County, MI). Residents age 13+: ~44,000.
• Estimated social media users (13+): ~35,000–38,000 (about 80–85% of adults; ~95% of teens).
• Daily users: roughly 25,000–28,000 use at least one platform daily.

Most-used platforms (estimated adult reach in Cass County)

• YouTube: ~80–85% of adults
• Facebook: ~70–75% (slightly above national average due to older/rural skew)
• Instagram: ~40–50% (higher among under 35)
• TikTok: ~25–35% (50–60% among 18–29)
• Snapchat: ~20–30% overall; 60–75% among teens/college-age
• Pinterest: ~30–40% (female-skewed; crafts, home, recipes)
• LinkedIn: ~20–30% (professionals/commuters)
• X (Twitter): ~15–25%
• Reddit: ~15–20%
• Nextdoor: ~5–10% of households (Facebook Groups often serve the same role locally)

Age mix (share of social media users; approximations)

• Teens (13–17): 7–9% of users; heavy on YouTube, TikTok, Snapchat
• 18–24: ~8–10%; Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat dominant; YouTube universal
• 25–44: ~30–35%; Facebook + Instagram core; YouTube universal; TikTok growing
• 45–64: ~30–35%; Facebook strongest; YouTube high; Pinterest notable
• 65+: ~18–22%; Facebook and YouTube lead; light Instagram/TikTok

Gender breakdown

• County population is roughly even; users skew slightly female (~52–54%) due to platform mix and older age structure.
• Platform skews: Pinterest strongly female; Reddit and X more male; Facebook and Instagram modest female lean.

Behavioral trends to expect locally

• Facebook is the community hub: local news, school/sports updates, road closures, civic info; high engagement in Groups.
• Facebook Marketplace is very active for buy/sell/trade, farm/outdoor gear, vehicles, home goods.
• YouTube serves “how-to” and practical content: DIY, home repair, outdoor/recreation, equipment reviews.
• Instagram is used for local dining, boutiques, salons, and events; Stories and Reels drive discovery among under 40.
• TikTok growth among 18–34 for entertainment, recipes, hacks; local businesses using short-form video see outsized reach.
• Messaging-first behavior: Facebook Messenger and SMS are primary; some WhatsApp usage for family and cross-border contacts.
• Posting cadence: most engagement evenings (7–9 pm) and lunch hours; weekends strong for events and Marketplace.
• Community-first creative wins: locally recognizable places, seasonal activities, deals/utility, and short videos (10–30 seconds).
• Lurker majority: many users consume more than they post; informational and deal-oriented content outperforms hard sells.
• Cross-posting common: the same residents often see content on Facebook + YouTube; younger users add Instagram/TikTok.

Notes and sources

• Population and age/sex mix: U.S. Census/ACS for Cass County.
• Platform reach percentages: Pew Research Center, Social Media Use in 2024 (U.S. adults); teen usage patterns from Pew’s teen studies.
• Figures are estimates created by applying national rates to Cass County’s demographics and rural/older skew. Actual platform counts will vary.