Clare County

Clare County, Michigan (latest available ACS 2019–2023 5-year estimates)

Population

• Total population: ~31,000

Age

• Median age: ~47 years
• Under 18: ~21%
• 18 to 64: ~56%
• 65 and over: ~23%

Gender

• Female: ~50%
• Male: ~50%

Race and Hispanic origin

• White alone: ~94%
• Black or African American alone: ~1%
• American Indian/Alaska Native alone: ~1%
• Asian alone: ~0.4%
• Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander: ~0%
• Two or more races: ~3%
• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~2–3%

Households

• Total households: ~12,800–13,000
• Average household size: ~2.3 persons
• Family households: ~63–65% of households
• Households with children under 18: ~24–26%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2019–2023 5-year estimates (tables DP05, S0101, S1101). Estimates rounded for clarity.

Clare County, MI snapshot

• Population and density: ~31,000 residents; ~55 people per square mile (largely rural).
• Estimated email users: ~21,000 adults (≈85% of residents 18+). Including teens using school accounts pushes total users into the low‑20,000s.
• Age distribution (share using email):
  • 18–29: ~95–98%
  • 30–49: ~95–98%
  • 50–64: ~85–92%
  • 65+: ~75–85%
• Gender split: Essentially even; men and women use email at similar rates.
• Digital access and trends:
  • Most households have internet and a computer/smartphone; fixed‑broadband adoption is roughly 75–85%, with 10–15% relying on mobile‑only or public/work connections.
  • Best wireline service clusters in/near Clare, Harrison, and Farwell and along the US‑127 corridor; outlying townships depend more on fixed‑wireless or satellite.
  • Ongoing fiber builds (aided by state/federal programs like BEAD/ROBIN/RDOF) are raising speeds and shrinking gaps, but pockets with slower service persist in wooded and lake areas.
  • Libraries and schools are important access points; senior digital‑literacy support remains a need.

Notes: Figures are estimates synthesized from national/rural email behavior (Pew) and Michigan/US connectivity patterns (ACS/FCC) applied to Clare County’s size and rural profile.

Clare County, MI: Mobile phone usage snapshot

Overview

• Clare County is a rural, older, and lower‑income county compared with Michigan overall. Those traits shape mobile adoption: high basic mobile ownership, somewhat lower smartphone penetration, heavier use of prepaid/MVNO plans, and more reliance on mobile data as a substitute for limited wired broadband.

Estimated number of mobile users

• Population baseline: roughly 30–31K residents (2020 Census; little net change since).
• Mobile phone ownership (any mobile): 92–96% of adults in comparable rural counties, with some teen ownership. Estimated total mobile users: about 26–29K.
• Smartphone users: given an older age profile, estimated 70–80% of all residents (including teens) use a smartphone. That implies roughly 21–25K smartphone users; the balance uses basic/feature phones or shared/limited-use devices.
• Household level: due to lower incomes and larger senior share, expect more single‑line or two‑line households and fewer high‑end unlimited plans than statewide.

Demographic drivers and how they differ from Michigan

• Age: Clare County skews older (senior share meaningfully above state average). Effects:
  • Lower smartphone adoption among 65+, more flip/feature phones.
  • Longer device replacement cycles; higher use of budget Android devices.
  • Higher voice/SMS reliance; app mix tilted to utilities (weather, health portals) and Facebook/Messenger.
• Income and affordability: Median household income is below the Michigan median.
  • Above‑average use of prepaid/MVNO carriers (Straight Talk, Tracfone, Visible, Cricket, Metro).
  • Sensitivity to plan cost caps data usage; hotspot use is common where home broadband is weak.
  • The sunset of the Affordable Connectivity Program in 2024 likely pushed some households toward mobile‑only internet or smaller data buckets, more than in wealthier counties.
• Education and occupation: More blue‑collar, seasonal, and service employment than state average.
  • Usage peaks around seasonal work and tourism periods; practical apps (navigation, weather, hunting/fishing) see strong use.
• Race/ethnicity: The county is less diverse than the state.
  • Digital inclusion efforts are more age/affordability focused than language‑access focused.

Digital infrastructure and coverage patterns

• Network coverage
  • 4G LTE is generally solid along population centers and highways (Clare, Harrison, Farwell; US‑127 and US‑10 corridors).
  • 5G low‑band is present around towns and along main roads; mid‑band 5G (faster) is patchier than in Michigan’s metros.
  • Forested/northern and lake‑area townships see spotty service and indoor‑coverage challenges; dead zones persist off major corridors.
• Carriers
  • Verizon and AT&T typically offer the broadest rural LTE footprints; AT&T’s FirstNet supports public safety. T‑Mobile has improved low‑band 5G but mid‑band reach is uneven outside towns.
  • Because of price sensitivity, MVNOs riding the big three networks have notable share.
• Capacity and speeds
  • Fewer macro sites per square mile than state average; carriers lean on low‑band spectrum for reach, which limits capacity and speeds versus Michigan’s urban counties.
  • Small cells are rare outside town centers; backhaul is a mix of microwave and limited fiber, with better fiber presence along highways.
• Home and community connectivity
  • Wired broadband options (cable/DSL) are thinner than statewide; many households lean on mobile hotspots or fixed wireless.
  • 5G home internet from Verizon/T‑Mobile is available near towns but not countywide; satellite (including Starlink) fills gaps.
  • Libraries and schools in Clare and Harrison are important public Wi‑Fi anchors.

Usage patterns that diverge from state‑level trends

• Slightly lower smartphone penetration and higher basic‑phone retention due to age mix.
• Higher prepaid/MVNO adoption; fewer premium unlimited plans; more careful data budgeting.
• More mobile‑only or mobile‑first internet households because of patchy wired broadband.
• Slower average mobile speeds and fewer 5G mid‑band zones than statewide urban averages; performance falls off more quickly indoors and in wooded areas.
• Seasonal spikes in traffic near lakes, campgrounds, and along US‑127/US‑10, unlike steadier urban demand profiles.
• Greater reliance on voice/text, weather/emergency alerts, and navigation; streaming and gaming usage is more constrained by data caps and coverage.

Notes and caveats

• Figures are estimates synthesized from rural Michigan adoption patterns, 2020 Census demographics, and known carrier deployment patterns; exact counts require carrier or FCC Form 477/BDC data and on‑the‑ground drive tests.

Clare County, MI — social media snapshot (modeled estimates)

Topline user stats

• Population: ≈31,000
• Estimated social media users: 21,000–23,000 (about 68–75% of residents; range reflects rural internet adoption and age mix)
• Devices: Predominantly mobile; smart‑TV YouTube viewing is common in households

Most‑used platforms (share of adult residents who use each, est.)

• YouTube: 75–82%
• Facebook: 65–72% (strongest local network effect)
• Instagram: 35–42%
• TikTok: 22–28%
• Snapchat: 18–24% (concentrated in teens/young adults)
• Pinterest: 22–28% (female‑skewed)
• X (Twitter): 14–18%
• WhatsApp: 14–18% (family/intl ties pockets)
• LinkedIn: 12–16% (healthcare/education/government-heavy)
• Reddit: 12–16%
• Nextdoor: 8–12% (lower neighborhood density)

Age patterns (who’s active and where)

• Teens (13–17): High daily use; Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube; Instagram for school/sports; Facebook mainly for events/parents’ groups.
• 18–29: Heavy multi‑platform use; Instagram/TikTok for discovery, Snapchat for messaging, YouTube for long‑form/how‑to; Facebook for local groups/Marketplace.
• 30–49: Facebook + Messenger are default; YouTube for DIY/family content; Instagram Reels rising; TikTok moderate.
• 50–64: Facebook and YouTube dominate; Pinterest for recipes/crafts; limited Instagram; low TikTok/Snapchat.
• 65+: Facebook (groups, events, Marketplace) and YouTube; smaller but growing Instagram; very low TikTok/Snapchat.

Gender breakdown (approximate)

• Overall users: ~51% female, ~49% male (tracks county population)
• Platform skews:
  • Female: Pinterest (heavily), Facebook (slight), Instagram (slight)
  • Male: Reddit, X (Twitter), YouTube (slight), LinkedIn (slight)
  • Snapchat: leans female among younger users

Local behavioral trends

• Facebook = community hub: Buy/sell/trade, school and youth sports, churches, local governments, events, severe weather updates; Marketplace is a major commerce channel.
• Groups > Pages for engagement: Hyper‑local groups drive reach; recommendations and word‑of‑mouth posts outperform brand broadcasts.
• Video habits: DIY, outdoors, auto repair, homesteading on YouTube; short‑form Reels cross‑posted FB/IG; casual, local footage beats overly polished creative.
• Messaging commerce: Deals start in Marketplace, move to Messenger/SMS; phone calls and in‑person pickup preferred over e‑commerce checkout.
• Seasonality: Engagement lifts around school year milestones, hunting/fishing seasons, fairs/festivals, and weather events.
• Timing: Evenings (7–10pm) and weekends see the highest comment/reply rates; lunch hour mini‑peaks on weekdays.
• Trust cues: Local faces, known businesses, county/city/sheriff pages, and neighbor recommendations carry outsized credibility.
• Ads: Geo‑targeted FB/IG with tight radius and interest overlays perform well; short video and single‑image ads with clear local CTAs (call/visit) typically beat link‑outs.

Notes on method

• County‑level platform stats aren’t directly published. Figures above are estimates derived from: Pew Research Center’s 2024 U.S. platform adoption rates, adjusted for Clare County’s older age profile; U.S. Census/ACS population and age mix; typical rural Michigan internet adoption. Treat as directional, not exact counts.