Cheboygan County

Here are current, high-level demographics for Cheboygan County, Michigan. Figures are the latest available from the U.S. Census Bureau (primarily ACS 2018–2022 5-year estimates, with 2023 population estimate).

Population size

• 2023 population estimate: ~25.5k (2020 Census: 25.6k)

Age

• Median age: ~49–50
• Under 18: ~19%
• 65 and over: ~26%

Gender

• Female: ~50%
• Male: ~50%

Race/ethnicity (shares of total population)

• White (non-Hispanic): ~90%
• American Indian/Alaska Native: ~4%
• Two or more races: ~3%
• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~2%
• Black or African American: ~0.5%
• Asian: ~0.3%

Households

• Number of households: ~11.2k
• Average household size: ~2.25
• Family households: ~64% of households
• Married-couple families: ~49% of households
• Households with children under 18: ~23–24%
• One-person households: ~30–31% (about half of these are age 65+)

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program (2023) and American Community Survey 2018–2022 5-year (tables DP05, S0101, S1101). Estimates rounded for readability.

Cheboygan County, MI snapshot (estimates)

• Population and density: ~26,000 residents; ~35–40 people per square mile. Settlement is clustered around Cheboygan, Indian River, and major lakes; interior forested areas are sparse, affecting connectivity.

• Estimated email users: 18,000–21,000 residents. Basis: most adults use the internet and email; rural adoption lags urban areas slightly.

• Age distribution of email use (share of each age group using email)

  • 18–29: ~95%+
  • 30–49: ~95%
  • 50–64: ~90%
  • 65+: ~75–85% Older adults are the fastest-growing adopters but remain below younger cohorts.

• Gender split: Roughly even (near 50/50); no meaningful gender gap in email use.

• Digital access and trends:

  • Household internet subscription: ~70–80% (lower in seasonal or remote areas).
  • Broadband availability: high along towns/highways; pockets of limited wired service in rural interiors. Fixed wireless, 5G, and satellite fill gaps.
  • Ongoing state/federal rural broadband investments are expanding fiber and fixed wireless coverage; adoption is rising, especially among 65+.
  • Mobile coverage is strong near population centers and corridors, with dead zones in heavily wooded or lakeshore areas.

Notes: Figures are synthesized from national/rural usage patterns and recent Michigan connectivity trends applied to Cheboygan County’s population and geography.

Summary of mobile phone usage in Cheboygan County, Michigan

User estimates (modeled)

• Total population: about 25–26k; adults (18+): ~20–21k.
• Mobile phone users (any cellphone): roughly 19–20k adults.
• Smartphone users: roughly 15.5–17k adults.
• Smartphone-dependent for home internet: noticeably present among working-age and lower-income residents, but tempered by a large senior population; net effect appears slightly higher smartphone-dependence among under‑50s than statewide, but lower overall adoption than the Michigan average. Method in brief: Applied age-specific smartphone adoption rates from recent national surveys (Pew, 2023–2024) with a rural downward adjustment, to Cheboygan’s older-than-average age mix from ACS/Census. Figures are estimates, not official counts.

Demographic usage patterns (how the county differs from Michigan overall)

• Older age structure: Share of residents 65+ is well above the state average. This pulls down overall smartphone adoption and increases the share of voice/SMS-first users and basic/flip phones, particularly outside population centers.
• Income and plan mix: Median household income trails Michigan, which correlates with:
  • Higher use of prepaid and value MVNO plans.
  • More price-sensitive data usage (smaller data buckets, Wi‑Fi offloading).
• Device and platform tendencies: Relative to the state, a higher tilt toward budget Android devices; iPhone share appears lower, especially among seniors and prepaid users.
• Smartphone-only reliance: Among younger adults, renters, and seasonal workers, reliance on smartphones as primary internet access is somewhat higher than the Michigan norm due to patchier wired broadband and affordability constraints—even as overall county smartphone adoption is lower because of the older population.
• Seasonal population swings: Summer tourism around Indian River, Burt/Mullett Lake, and the Straits markedly increases mobile data demand on weekends/holidays—seasonality is a more pronounced factor here than for the state overall.

Digital infrastructure highlights

• Coverage pattern:
  • Strongest along I‑75, US‑23, and in/near towns (City of Cheboygan, Indian River). Forested interiors and shorelines see more dead zones and weak indoor signal than typical in downstate metros.
  • Carriers: Verizon generally has the broadest rural footprint; AT&T is competitive along highways/towns; T‑Mobile coverage has improved but remains variable in wooded and lake-adjacent areas.
• 5G availability:
  • Low-band 5G is common on main corridors; mid-band 5G capacity sites are limited and concentrated near population centers. Large rural areas remain LTE-first. This leaves peak and indoor speeds below state urban/suburban norms.
• Capacity and congestion:
  • Fewer macro sites per square mile than in southern Michigan; capacity strains appear during summer peaks and severe-weather incidents. Indoor penetration can be challenging in older buildings; many households rely on Wi‑Fi calling.
• Backhaul and wired context that shapes mobile use:
  • Cable broadband (e.g., Spectrum) and some DSL cover towns and denser lakeshore pockets; fiber-to-the-home is sparse relative to the state average. Many outlying areas lean on fixed wireless or LEO satellite, which pushes some working-age residents toward smartphone-only or hotspot-based access.
  • Ongoing state/federal rural broadband programs are expected to add fiber and fixed wireless capacity through the mid‑2020s, but timelines and coverage are uneven across townships.
• Public and anchor connectivity:
  • Libraries, schools, and municipal buildings are key Wi‑Fi anchors and often cited by residents for offloading large downloads—more so than in well-wired downstate counties.

How Cheboygan differs most from the Michigan statewide picture

• 5–10 percentage points lower adult smartphone penetration, driven by a larger senior share and rural coverage gaps.
• Higher prevalence of basic/feature phones among seniors; greater voice/SMS-first usage.
• Greater dependence on prepaid/value plans and Wi‑Fi offload; lower per-user cellular data consumption outside the tourist season.
• More residents in outer townships relying on fixed wireless/satellite or smartphone-only access due to limited fiber/cable—digital divide factors are more pronounced than the state average.
• Larger seasonal swings in network load and more location-specific dead zones; 5G mid-band capacity is spottier than in Michigan’s metros and larger suburbs.

Notes and caveats

• Figures are modeled from ACS/Census population and age mix, Pew Research smartphone adoption by age/rurality (2023–2024), and typical rural Michigan carrier footprints and FCC deployment patterns. Use for planning/context, not as official counts.

Below is a concise, best-available estimate for Cheboygan County, MI. County-level social media data isn’t directly published, so figures are modeled from the county’s older-leaning age profile (ACS/Census) and Pew Research Center’s 2023–2024 U.S. platform adoption rates. Treat ranges as directional (±5–10 percentage points).

Headline user stats

• Total population: ~25–26k; adults (18+): ~20–21k
• Adults using at least one social platform: ~14–16k (about 68–75% of adults)
• Overall gender split among users: roughly 52% women, 48% men (women over-index on Facebook/Pinterest; men on YouTube/Reddit/X)

Age mix among adult users (share of users)

• 18–29: ~12–15%
• 30–44: ~22–26%
• 45–64: ~32–36%
• 65+: ~24–28% Notes: The county skews older than the U.S. average, so a larger share of users are 45+ compared with national norms.

Most-used platforms (share of adults who use the platform; estimated ranges)

• YouTube: 65–75%
• Facebook: 60–70%
• Instagram: 25–35%
• Pinterest: 20–30% (especially women 35+)
• TikTok: 18–25%
• Snapchat: 15–22% (concentrated among teens/younger adults)
• X/Twitter: 12–18%
• LinkedIn: 10–15% (lower due to occupational mix)
• Reddit: 8–12%
• Nextdoor: 5–10% (lower rural penetration)

Behavioral trends to know

• Facebook is the community hub: Heavy use of local Groups and Marketplace for buy/sell/trade, garage sales, school and booster clubs, lost-and-found pets, road and weather updates, and local government notices.
• Seasonal content surges: Summer tourism (lakes, boating, fishing on the Inland Waterway), fall colors, and winter snowmobile trail reports drive spikes in photos, event posts, and local business promotions.
• Local news discovery: Residents follow local paper/radio and community pages; event discovery skews to Facebook events and shares from friends.
• Practical video behavior: YouTube used for “how-to” and DIY (home/cabin/boat maintenance, outdoor recreation). Older adults lean to long-form; younger audiences gravitate to Shorts/Reels.
• Messaging norms: Facebook Messenger is the default for community coordination; group chats for teams, clubs, and school activities are common.
• Commerce response: Strong engagement for clear, local offers (seasonal services, dining specials, trades), with preference for phone numbers, hours, and simple CTAs over complex funnels.
• Posting rhythm: Evenings (6–9 pm) and weekends see higher engagement; weekday mornings for school/road updates. Summer sees overall higher activity (tourists and seasonal residents).
• Connectivity considerations: Many users rely on mobile data; captions/subtitles help. Static images and short videos perform well.
• Content tone: High engagement with outdoor scenery, wildlife, community milestones, and high school sports. Moderation matters in local groups during election cycles.

Sources and method notes

• Platform adoption baselines: Pew Research Center social media use studies (2023–2024).
• Demographic weighting: U.S. Census Bureau/ACS county age structure to adjust national platform rates for an older-skewing rural county profile.
• Figures are modeled estimates, not direct county surveys; use for planning and targeting with appropriate margin for error.