Gratiot County

Key demographics for Gratiot County, Michigan (best available official data: U.S. Census Bureau 2020 Decennial Census and 2018–2022 American Community Survey 5-year estimates)

Population

• Total population: 41,761 (2020 Census)

Age

• Median age: ~40 years (ACS 2018–2022)
• Under 18: ~21%
• 65 and over: ~17%

Sex

• Male: ~53%
• Female: ~47% (Note: male-skewed due to multiple state correctional facilities in the county)

Race and ethnicity (2020 Census)

• White alone (non-Hispanic): ~82%
• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~7%
• Black or African American: ~6%
• Two or more races: ~4%
• Asian: <1%
• American Indian/Alaska Native: <1%

Households (ACS 2018–2022)

• Total households: ~16,700
• Average household size: ~2.5
• Family households: ~64% of households
• One-person households: ~28%
• Households with children under 18: ~28%
• Owner-occupied housing rate: ~76%

Insights

• Slight population decline from 2010 to 2020
• Older-than-average age profile for Michigan
• High owner-occupancy and a sizable share of one-person households

Gratiot County, MI snapshot (2023 est.)

• Population and density: ~40,600 residents; ~73 people per square mile across ~560 sq. mi.
• Estimated email users: ~30,800 residents age 13+ use email regularly, modeled from ACS population and Pew age-specific adoption.
• Age distribution of email users:
  • 13–17: ~2,200 (7%)
  • 18–49: ~16,300 (53%)
  • 50–64: ~6,800 (22%)
  • 65+: ~5,500 (18%)
• Gender split: Email usage is effectively even by gender; user base tracks the county’s slight male-leaning population, ≈51% male, 49% female.
• Digital access and trends:
  • ~79% of households subscribe to fixed broadband; ~90% have a computer device at home; ~10–12% rely mainly on mobile internet.
  • Adoption has risen roughly 4–6 percentage points since 2018 as cable and emerging fiber expand in Alma–St. Louis–Ithaca; outer townships still show higher reliance on DSL and fixed wireless.
  • 5G coverage is present along the US‑127 corridor and population centers; speeds and reliability taper in more rural areas, contributing to lower at‑home subscription rates compared with state urban averages.

Insight: Email is near-universal among working-age adults; remaining gaps are driven more by access and affordability than interest, especially in rural townships and among the 65+ cohort.

Summary of mobile phone usage in Gratiot County, Michigan (focus on differences from statewide patterns)

Overall adoption and user estimates

• Population baseline: 41,761 residents (2020 Census). Adult share is relatively high due to an older age profile.
• Estimated active mobile connections: roughly 53,000–56,000 lines in service in the county (applying the typical U.S. ratio of 1.25–1.35 mobile connections per resident to the 2020 population), implying more lines than people and multiple devices per user are common, but somewhat less so than in Michigan’s metro counties where device-per-person ratios tend to run higher.
• Household smartphone access: high but modestly below the Michigan average. Rural Michigan counties of similar profile typically show 88–90% of households with a smartphone versus about 91–93% statewide; Gratiot aligns with that rural pattern, trailing the state by a couple of percentage points.
• Smartphone-only internet households: meaning households that rely on a cellular data plan and do not have fixed broadband. This share is meaningfully higher in Gratiot than the state, reflecting rural infrastructure and income mix. Expect roughly low-20s percent in Gratiot versus high-teens statewide.

Demographic patterns that shape usage (contrasts with Michigan)

• Age: Gratiot’s median age is slightly higher than Michigan’s, and the county has a larger 65+ share. As a result, overall smartphone adoption and especially 5G handset penetration lag the state. Among younger adults (18–34), adoption is near-universal and comparable to the state; the gap concentrates among residents 55+.
• Income and education: Median household income in Gratiot is lower than the Michigan median, with a larger share of households at or below 200% of the federal poverty level. This correlates with:
  • Higher prevalence of smartphone-only connectivity as a cost-management strategy.
  • Lower rates of multi-line/device ownership per person than in wealthier metro counties.
• Race/ethnicity: The county’s population is predominantly White with small Black and Hispanic communities. Usage differences by race are generally smaller than the rural–urban and age-driven differences in this county; in practice, coverage and affordability are the stronger drivers of variation.

Digital infrastructure and coverage (what differs from the state)

• Network availability: All three national carriers operate 4G LTE countywide, but 5G coverage is concentrated along major corridors (notably US‑127 and M‑46) and population centers (Alma, St. Louis, Ithaca). Compared with Michigan’s metro areas, 5G signal density is lower and indoor 5G availability is patchier, especially in outlying townships.
• Performance: Median cellular download speeds are more variable than in urban Michigan, with noticeable slowdowns at peak times on heavily used sectors near Alma and along US‑127, and weaker indoor performance in sparsely populated areas where sites are farther apart. Upload speeds are often the limiting factor for video calls and telehealth in the most rural parts of the county.
• Fixed broadband interplay: Cable and fiber footprints are strong in towns but thin out quickly in rural areas. That creates two county-level trends that diverge from the state:
  • Greater reliance on mobile broadband and fixed wireless access (FWA) for home internet than the statewide average.
  • Larger pockets where residents keep older LTE devices/SIMs as primary access because fixed options are limited or costly.
• Resilience and dead zones: Coverage gaps persist in low-density, tree-covered, or low‑lying areas away from highways. During outages, traffic shifts onto remaining sectors more noticeably than in urban counties, which can degrade service until normal operations resume.

What this means in practice

• Gratiot County’s mobile adoption is high but dragged a bit below the Michigan average by an older age mix and more limited fixed broadband in rural areas.
• A larger slice of households is “mobile-first” or “mobile-only” for internet than statewide, making cellular performance and plan affordability especially important.
• 5G is present and growing but remains corridor- and town-centric; outside those areas, residents experience LTE-first conditions more often than in Michigan’s metro counties.
• Any improvement in rural site density, mid-band 5G build-out, and continued expansion of fixed wireless and fiber will disproportionately benefit Gratiot compared with the already well-served state urban average.

Gratiot County, MI social media usage (2024 snapshot)

What this covers

• Modeled, best-available county-level estimates using 2023 ACS demographics for Gratiot County and 2024 Pew Research platform adoption, with rural-Midwest adjustments. Figures are rounded.

Population base

• Residents: ~40,900
• Adults (18+): ~31,900
• Teens (13–17): ~2,600

Overall usage and user counts

• Adults using at least one social platform: 77% (24,600)
• Teens using at least one platform: 95% (2,500)
• Total social users (13+): ~27,000
• Daily social users (check at least once/day): 70% of users (19,000)

Most-used platforms (adult adoption, share of 18+; county estimates)

• YouTube: ~80%
• Facebook: ~66%
• Instagram: ~36%
• TikTok: ~30%
• Pinterest: ~31%
• Snapchat: ~24%
• X (Twitter): ~20%
• LinkedIn: ~16%
• Reddit: ~13%
• Nextdoor: ~10%

Age-group profile

• Any-platform adoption by age
  • 13–17: ~95%
  • 18–29: ~92%
  • 30–49: ~85%
  • 50–64: ~70%
  • 65+: ~50%
• Share of the county’s total social user base (13+)
  • 13–17: ~9%
  • 18–29: ~19%
  • 30–49: ~32%
  • 50–64: ~23%
  • 65+: ~17%
• Platform tendencies by age
  • Teens (13–17): YouTube, Snapchat, TikTok, Instagram; minimal Facebook
  • 18–29: YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat; Facebook secondary
  • 30–49: Facebook and YouTube dominate; Instagram moderate; TikTok rising
  • 50–64: Facebook and YouTube; Pinterest common; Instagram light
  • 65+: Facebook for social/news; YouTube for how‑to and local content

Gender breakdown

• Overall social user base: ~54% female, ~46% male
• Platform skews
  • Female-leaning: Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest, Snapchat
  • Male-leaning: YouTube, Reddit, X
  • Mixed/neutral: TikTok (slight female tilt), LinkedIn (near-even)

Behavioral trends in Gratiot County

• Community-first usage: Heavy reliance on Facebook Groups and Pages for town, schools, county government, law enforcement, school sports, weather alerts, and event updates (fairs, festivals, youth sports).
• Local commerce: Facebook Marketplace and buy/sell/trade groups are core for vehicles, farm equipment, tools, furniture; weekend morning spikes.
• Video habits: Strong YouTube “how‑to” (home repair, auto, farming, small-engine), hunting/fishing, and local sports highlights; short‑form video growth on Reels/TikTok among under‑35.
• Messaging: Facebook Messenger is ubiquitous across ages; Snapchat dominates teen peer communication.
• News and issues: Facebook is the primary venue for local news, obituaries, school closings, road conditions, outages, and ballot/board issues; X is used mostly for college/pro sports and severe-weather nowcasts.
• Small-business marketing: Local retailers, trades, realtors, and restaurants lean on Facebook/Instagram posts and boosted events; Instagram is used for visual menus, specials, and before/after project reels; TikTok trials by younger owners.
• Timing: Engagement peaks around 6–8 a.m. and 7–10 p.m.; school-year schedules amplify evening usage; weather events drive real-time spikes.
• Seasonal rhythm: Summer county fair and fall sports increase photo/video sharing; late fall through winter favors how‑to and indoor DIY content.
• Trust dynamics: Admin‑moderated local groups shape word‑of‑mouth; recommendations and referrals in comments are influential for service providers.

Notes

• Figures represent modeled county estimates from ACS demographics and Pew platform adoption as of 2024; expect modest variance (+/– a few percentage points) from any on-the-ground survey.