Emmet County

Here are concise, recent demographics for Emmet County, Michigan (U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2019–2023 5-year estimates; figures rounded):

Population

• Total population: ~34,700
• 2020 Census count (for reference): 34,112

Age

• Median age: ~46 years
• Under 18: ~20%
• 18–64: ~56%
• 65 and over: ~24%

Gender

• Female: ~50.5%
• Male: ~49.5%

Race/ethnicity

• White (non-Hispanic): ~88%
• American Indian and Alaska Native (non-Hispanic): ~4–5%
• Two or more races (non-Hispanic): ~4–5%
• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~2–3%
• Asian (non-Hispanic): ~0.5–1%
• Black or African American (non-Hispanic): ~0.3–0.6%

Households

• Number of households: ~14,500
• Average household size: ~2.3 persons
• Family households: ~60%
• Married-couple families: ~48–50%
• Households with children under 18: ~25–27%
• Nonfamily households: ~39–40% (about one-third living alone; ~1 in 8 are 65+ living alone)

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2019–2023 (5-year); 2020 Decennial Census.

Summary for Emmet County, Michigan (estimates; based on U.S. Census ACS and Pew Research adoption rates)

• Population: ~34,000; adults (18+) ~27,000.
• Estimated email users (18+): ~26,000 (≈92–95% of adults), with minimal gender gap.
• Age distribution of email users (approx. counts and share of users):
  • 18–34: ~6.3k (24%)
  • 35–54: ~8.6k (33%)
  • 55–64: ~4.9k (19%)
  • 65+: ~6.0k (23%) — slightly lower adoption than younger groups but still high.
• Gender split: County population ≈51% female; email usage rates are similar by gender, so users ≈51% female, 49% male.
• Digital access trends:
  • Broadband subscription: mid-80% of households (typical for Michigan; rural counties slightly lower than statewide averages).
  • Smartphone-only internet reliance: roughly 15–20% of adults.
  • Access strongest in/around Petoskey–Harbor Springs; higher-speed fixed broadband is patchier in rural townships where DSL, fixed wireless, or satellite fill gaps.
• Local density/connectivity context: ~70–75 people per square mile, with population clustered along the US-31 corridor; lower-density areas correlate with more limited high-speed options.

Emmet County, MI: Mobile phone usage summary (with county-vs-state contrasts)

Topline resident and user estimates

• Population base: roughly 34–35k residents. Adults are about 26–28k.
• Resident smartphone users: approximately 24–27k (based on rural/older-area adoption in the mid–high 80% range among adults, and very high adoption among teens).
• Active mobile lines (phones, tablets, wearables, hotspots): about 30–38k among residents, reflecting multi-device ownership.
• Seasonal swing: summer visitors and second-home owners push device presence roughly 1.4–1.8x higher than winter baseline, driving short-term congestion in resort towns and along the shoreline. This seasonal load spike is much larger than Michigan’s statewide average.

Demographic breakdown (how usage differs from Michigan overall)

• Age:
  • 18–34: near-universal smartphone ownership (95–99%); usage patterns similar to state average.
  • 35–64: high ownership (about 90–95%), slightly below large metro areas but close to the state average.
  • 65+: 75–85% smartphone ownership—slightly lower than the statewide rate—because Emmet skews older. Rapid growth in telehealth and messaging among seniors is narrowing the gap, but not eliminating it.
• Geography/income:
  • Lakefront communities and the US‑31/US‑131 corridor show “urban-like” device density and higher 5G availability; inland townships and forested areas rely more on LTE and fixed wireless. This urban–rural split is sharper than the state average.
  • Second-home and tourism-driven households raise the per-person device count (more tablets/watches and hotspots) compared with the statewide mix.
• Tribal and equity considerations:
  • The Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians and nearby rural communities face spotty coverage and higher reliance on hotspots. Grant-funded fiber and fixed-wireless projects are playing a bigger role here than in Michigan’s urban counties.

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• Carriers and radio access:
  • Verizon: generally the broadest rural footprint; solid along US‑31/US‑131 and in Petoskey/Harbor Springs; frequent LTE fallback inland.
  • AT&T: strong on main corridors and town centers; Band‑14/FirstNet adds resilience for public safety; inland gaps persist.
  • T‑Mobile: good in towns and along US‑31; weaker in some far‑north and heavily forested pockets.
  • 5G: mid‑band 5G common in Petoskey/Harbor Springs/Bay View and along primary corridors; inland areas are still LTE-first. mmWave is rare. Compared with the state, Emmet has fewer 5G sectors per square mile and more LTE reliance.
  • Known weak spots: Wilderness State Park and shoreline stretches, the M‑119 “Tunnel of Trees,” and some inland townships—dead zones more prevalent than the Michigan average.
• Backhaul and broadband context (shapes mobile performance):
  • Fiber/coax in towns: Spectrum (cable) and expanding electric‑co‑op fiber (e.g., Truestream via Great Lakes Energy) provide strong backhaul where available.
  • Legacy DSL remains in parts of the interior; capacity limits in those areas push households to mobile hotspots.
  • Fixed wireless: local WISPs (often on CBRS/5 GHz) and carrier 5G home internet are common as primary or backup service—higher uptake than the statewide norm.
  • Satellite: Starlink and similar LEO options see notable adoption in remote areas; again higher than the Michigan average.
• Public and community access:
  • Libraries, marinas, and downtown districts in Petoskey and Harbor Springs offer reliable public Wi‑Fi; coverage drops quickly outside town grids compared with urban Michigan.
• Resilience and public safety:
  • FirstNet (AT&T) sites bolster response along major corridors; backup power and site hardening are priorities due to storms and shoreline exposure. Outage impacts are larger per site than in dense metro counties.

Trends that differ from Michigan’s statewide pattern

• Bigger seasonal capacity swings: Summer tourism and events cause short, intense spikes in traffic; carriers deploy temporary capacity and sector upgrades more often than in downstate metros.
• Heavier reliance on LTE/fixed wireless outside towns: 5G mid‑band depth is improving but remains patchier than the statewide average, increasing the importance of LTE optimization and carrier aggregation.
• Older age structure slightly suppresses smartphone adoption rates among seniors; however, telehealth and messaging growth is faster here than statewide as healthcare systems lean on mobile to reach rural patients.
• Mobile-as-primary or backup internet is more common due to gaps in wired coverage; hotspot use and multi‑SIM households are above the state average.
• Infrastructure buildout is driven disproportionately by co‑op fiber and grants (rather than large telcos), which influences where carriers can light up full 5G capacity first.

How the estimates were derived

• Resident counts align with recent Census/ACS figures; smartphone adoption rates follow national/Pew and rural adjustments; carrier presence reflects publicly available coverage maps and regional experience. Ranges are provided to acknowledge seasonal population variability and rural signal heterogeneity.

Here’s a concise, planning-ready snapshot for Emmet County, Michigan (Petoskey, Harbor Springs, Alanson, Pellston)—using national platform rates (Pew, 2023–2024) adjusted for the county’s older, rural profile and seasonal tourism.

Quick context

• Population: ~34,000; older-leaning vs U.S. average; strong seasonal influx (summer + ski season).
• Internet/smartphone access: high but slightly below urban areas; expect 75–85% of adults on at least one social platform.

Most-used platforms (estimated share of adults using monthly)

• YouTube: 80–85%
• Facebook: 60–70%
• Instagram: 35–45%
• Pinterest: 30–40% (skews female)
• TikTok: 20–30%
• Snapchat: 18–25%
• LinkedIn: 18–25%
• X/Twitter: 15–20%
• Reddit: 15–20% (skews male, younger)
• WhatsApp: 10–15%
• Nextdoor: 10–15% (strongest in Petoskey/Harbor Springs neighborhoods)

Age breakdown (estimated usage patterns)

• 18–29: 90–95% use social. Heavy on YouTube (95%), Instagram (70–80%), Snapchat (60–70%), TikTok (60–70%); Facebook ~50%.
• 30–49: 85–90%. YouTube (90%), Facebook (70%), Instagram (50–60%), TikTok (35–45%), Snapchat (30–40%), Pinterest (~40%).
• 50–64: 70–80%. Facebook (70–75%), YouTube (75–80%), Pinterest (35–40%), Instagram (30–35%), TikTok (15–20%).
• 65+: 50–60%. Facebook (55–60%), YouTube (55–60%), Pinterest (20–25%), Instagram (15–20%), TikTok (8–12%).

Gender skews (local patterns mirror national)

• Women over-index on Facebook and Instagram; Pinterest is majority female (~70–80%).
• Men over-index on YouTube (slight), Reddit, and X/Twitter.
• Overall social reach is similar by gender; differences show up by platform.

Behavioral trends you can plan against

• Facebook is the community hub: local news and alerts (county, schools, road commission), buy/sell/Marketplace, lost-and-found pets, recommendations for contractors and services.
• Groups drive engagement: “things to do,” yard sales, youth sports, outdoor/boating/ski conditions, school and church communities.
• Event discovery peaks on Facebook and Instagram: farmers markets, art fairs, concerts, trail/ski reports; posts with dates, maps, and short videos perform best.
• Strong seasonality:
  • Summer (May–Sept): surge in Instagram and TikTok from visitors; scenic/photo-first content, reels, and geo-tagged posts around Little Traverse Bay perform well.
  • Winter (Dec–Mar): ski/conditions content (Harbor Springs area) drives local and visitor interest; Facebook Groups and Stories for day-of decisions.
• Visual-first behavior: short-form video (reels/TikTok) and Stories for food specials, sunsets, trail/lake conditions, and behind-the-scenes at local shops.
• Messaging as service channel: FB Messenger/Instagram DMs for hours, reservations, wait times, custom orders; quick replies matter.
• Trust signals: Facebook and Google reviews heavily influence choices; UGC and local recommendations outperform polished ads.
• Nextdoor is used for neighborhood info and service referrals in denser neighborhoods (Petoskey/Harbor Springs), but reach is smaller than Facebook.

Notes and method

• Percentages are modeled estimates using recent Pew Research national platform adoption rates and rural/older adjustments for Emmet County’s demographics; they’re directional, not census counts. For precision campaigns, validate with platform ad planners (geo: Emmet County) and local page/group insights.