Hillsdale County

Hillsdale County, Michigan — key demographics

Population size

• 45,746 (2020 Census)

Age

• Median age: ~42 years
• Under 18: ~22%
• 65 and over: ~21%

Gender

• Female: ~50%
• Male: ~50%

Racial/ethnic composition

• White alone: ~95%
• Black or African American alone: ~1%
• American Indian and Alaska Native alone: ~0.5%
• Asian alone: ~0.5%
• Two or more races: ~3%
• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~3–4%
• White alone, not Hispanic or Latino: ~92%

Households

• Total households: ~18,000
• Average household size: ~2.5 persons
• Family households: ~68% of households
• Married-couple households: ~51% of households
• Households with children under 18: ~27%
• One-person households: ~28%

Insights

• Small, stable population with an older age profile than the U.S. overall.
• Predominantly non-Hispanic White with modest racial/ethnic diversity.
• Household size slightly below the U.S. average; majority are family households.

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

Hillsdale County, Michigan (pop. ≈45,500; density ≈76 people/sq mi) is largely rural, with connectivity centered around Hillsdale, Jonesville, and Reading.

Estimated email users: ≈36,000 residents (≈79% of total population). This derives from local age mix plus high U.S. email adoption among adults and teens.

Age distribution of email users (share of all users; est.):

• 18–34: ≈24%
• 35–54: ≈34%
• 55–64: ≈17%
• 65+: ≈22%
• Under 18 (primarily 13–17): ≈3%

Gender split among email users: effectively even (≈50% female, ≈50% male), mirroring population and national usage parity.

Digital access and trends:

• Household broadband subscription: ≈80–83% (ACS-like rural MI profile), with ≈15% lacking home internet and ≈10–12% smartphone‑only access.
• Fixed broadband is strongest in and near Hillsdale/Jonesville; outer townships rely more on DSL, fixed wireless, or satellite. Cable or fiber covers most town/city addresses; fiber buildouts are expanding but not universal.
• Mobile 4G is widespread; 5G covers main corridors and towns, improving email access on phones even where home broadband lags.

Implication: Email reach is broad across working-age adults and seniors, with adoption constrained mainly by rural last‑mile broadband gaps rather than user willingness.

Mobile phone usage in Hillsdale County, Michigan — summary with county-specific estimates and how they differ from statewide patterns

County profile (baseline facts)

• Population: 45,746 (2020 Census), spread over roughly 606–607 square miles; low population density relative to Michigan overall.
• Settlement pattern: small towns (Hillsdale, Jonesville, Litchfield, Reading) surrounded by agricultural and wooded areas; no interstate corridor inside the county. This shapes tower placement, backhaul options, and 5G rollout timing.

User estimates (2025)

• Unique mobile users: approximately 36,000–38,000 residents use a mobile phone regularly (about 80–84% of the population). This reflects the county’s older age structure and rural profile.
• Smartphone users: roughly 33,000–35,000 residents use a smartphone as their primary handset.
• Household smartphone access: about 85–88% of households have at least one smartphone; smartphone-only internet households are notably higher than the state average at approximately 13–16% of households.
• Line counts: total active cellular subscriptions likely exceed the population (national per-capita subscription rates >1.2), but Hillsdale’s per-capita line count is typically below the Michigan average due to lower tablet/hotspot adoption outside town centers.

Demographic breakdown (usage/adoption patterns)

• Age:
  • 18–34: near-universal smartphone adoption (>95%), heavy app and video usage; anchor demand around Hillsdale College and town centers.
  • 35–64: high adoption (~90%); strong use of navigation, messaging, social, and work apps; BYOD for regional commuting and trades.
  • 65+: lower but rising adoption (~75–80%); increased telehealth, banking, and messaging reliance; larger share on simpler or prepaid plans.
  • Teens (13–17): very high smartphone access (>90%); data consumption peaks around school-year social/video usage.
• Income/plan type:
  • Higher share of prepaid and value MVNO plans than Michigan overall, reflecting price sensitivity in rural households.
  • Above-average reliance on mobile data as a substitute for home broadband among lower-income households after the wind-down of the Affordable Connectivity Program.
• Device mix: iOS and Android both strong; Android share modestly higher than statewide norms in price-sensitive segments; hotspots/Jetpacks are used by a visible minority of households lacking reliable wired broadband.

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• Networks present: AT&T, T‑Mobile, and Verizon are the primary networks used; MVNOs ride on these networks. Coverage is strongest in and near Hillsdale, Jonesville, and along primary highways; service quality softens in sparsely populated townships, around lakes/woodlots, and in building interiors with metal/agricultural construction.
• 4G LTE: broadly available across populated areas; outdoor coverage is generally reliable countywide, though capacity can dip at peak times near schools, events, and lakes.
• 5G:
  • Availability and depth of 5G mid‑band capacity are meaningfully below Michigan’s statewide levels.
  • Low‑band 5G blankets most populated corridors; mid‑band 5G capacity is concentrated in/near towns and along primary routes, with patchier reach in rural stretches.
• Backhaul and capacity: a mix of fiber-fed macro sites in towns and microwave-fed sites in rural areas; fewer high-capacity sectors per site than urban Michigan, which can constrain peak speeds and indoor penetration.
• Alternatives and complements: fixed wireless access (FWA) via 4G/5G is a growing substitute where cable/DSL is limited; several WISPs operate on unlicensed and CBRS spectrum; private LTE/CBRS is emerging on farms and industrial sites but at small scale.

How Hillsdale differs from Michigan overall (key trends)

• Lower 5G capacity coverage and lower median mobile speeds than the state average, due to later mid‑band deployments and wider inter-site distances.
• Higher share of smartphone‑only internet households and higher reliance on mobile hotspots/FWA for home connectivity.
• Greater use of prepaid/MVNO plans and budget devices relative to the state as a whole.
• More pronounced coverage variability by micro‑location (tree cover, terrain, and farm/metal structures), with a larger urban–rural performance gap.
• Network upgrade cadence trails metro Michigan by roughly one product cycle (e.g., mid‑band/capacity layers and in‑building solutions arrive later).
• Usage patterns skew more toward messaging, navigation, and utility apps and less toward ultra‑high‑bitrate mobile streaming than in metro counties, reflecting capacity and plan constraints.

Implications and actionable insights

• Capacity is the primary constraint, not basic coverage: performance gains will track the pace of mid‑band 5G upgrades and fiber backhaul extensions to rural sites.
• Smartphone‑only and FWA households will continue to grow unless wired broadband fills remaining gaps; this sustains above‑average mobile data demand per household.
• For residents and businesses, multi-carrier redundancy (dual‑SIM or hotspot on a different network) meaningfully improves reliability in fringe areas and during events.
• For public safety and telehealth, in‑building coverage solutions (repeaters, small cells) can materially improve reliability in metal and masonry structures common in the county.

Hillsdale County, MI — social media usage snapshot (2024)

Headline numbers

• Population: ~45,800; residents age 13+: ~39,900
• Active social media users (13+): 31,000–33,000 (78–82% of 13+; 68–72% of total population)
• Gender among active users: 53–55% female, 45–47% male
• Household broadband access: ~75–80%; adult smartphone ownership: ~85–90%

Most-used platforms (share of residents 13+ using monthly)

• YouTube: 72–78%
• Facebook: 65–72%
• Instagram: 34–40%
• Pinterest: 25–32%
• TikTok: 24–30%
• Snapchat: 20–26%
• X (Twitter): 14–18%
• LinkedIn: 12–15%
• Nextdoor: 5–8%

User age mix (share of county social media users)

• 13–17: 9%
• 18–24: 13%
• 25–34: 19%
• 35–44: 19%
• 45–64: 29%
• 65+: 11%

Age-by-platform tendencies

• Under 25: Instagram 70–80%, Snapchat 65–75%, TikTok 60–70%, YouTube 90%+, Facebook 35–45%
• 25–44: Facebook 70–75%, YouTube 85–90%, Instagram 45–55%, TikTok 35–45%, Pinterest 35–40%
• 45–64: Facebook 75–80%, YouTube 75–80%, Instagram 25–30%, Pinterest 25–30%
• 65+: Facebook 55–65%, YouTube 60–65%

Behavioral trends

• Local-first on Facebook: Groups, school/church/community updates, and Marketplace dominate; event discovery is concentrated in Facebook Events. Engagement peaks evenings (7–10 pm) with a secondary lunchtime bump.
• Video gains: Short-form (Reels/TikTok/Shorts) is rising across ages; YouTube remains the go-to for how‑to, agriculture, hunting, home improvement, and local sports highlights.
• Commerce: Facebook Marketplace is the primary peer-to-peer channel; local services (home, auto, ag) perform best with before/after photos and short videos. Messenger is the default for inquiries and booking.
• Youth cohort (13–24): Snapchat and TikTok for daily messaging/entertainment; Instagram for school, sports, and campus life (Hillsdale College amplifies this segment during semesters).
• Older cohort (45+): Facebook and YouTube anchor usage; higher interaction with local news, public notices, obituaries, and weather/safety alerts.
• Community dynamics: High responsiveness to posts from trusted local pages; rumor-control and “what’s happening now” posts get outsized reach. Spikes in engagement around school boards, taxes, land use, and elections.
• Posting cadence: Consistent, utility-driven content outperforms volume; timely evening posts and weekend event reminders see the strongest organic reach.

Notes on methodology

• Figures are 2024 estimates derived from U.S. Census Bureau/ACS population structure for Hillsdale County and 2023–2024 Pew Research Center platform adoption benchmarks, adjusted for the county’s older age profile and rural context.