Iron County

Iron County, Michigan — key demographics

Population

• 11,631 (2020 Census)
• ~11,200 (2023 Census estimate), modest decline since 2010

Age

• Median age: ~52.5 years (ACS 5-year)
• Under 18: ~17–18%
• 18–64: ~54%
• 65 and over: ~28–29%

Gender

• Female: ~50%
• Male: ~50%

Race and ethnicity (ACS 5-year; race alone unless noted)

• White: ~94–95%
• Black or African American: ~0.5%
• American Indian/Alaska Native: ~1–1.5%
• Asian: ~0.3–0.5%
• Two or more races: ~3%
• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~2%

Households and housing

• Households: ~5,300
• Average household size: ~2.1
• Family households: ~57–60% of households
• Married-couple households: ~45–50% of households
• Nonfamily households: ~40–43%; living alone: ~35–37% (about half of these age 65+)
• Owner-occupied share: ~80–85% of occupied units

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

Iron County, Michigan (pop. ~11,500; ~10 people per sq. mile) is highly email-active despite rural sparsity.

Estimated email users: ~9,700 residents (≈85% of the population).

Age distribution of email users (share of users):

• Under 18: ~15%
• 18–34: ~19%
• 35–54: ~25%
• 55–64: ~14%
• 65+: ~27%

Gender split among email users: roughly even (≈49% male, 51% female).

Digital access and trends:

• About 78% of households have a home broadband subscription; ~22% lack fixed broadband at home.
• Smartphone reliance is significant in non-broadband homes (≈10% smartphone-only internet users), sustaining email access even where fixed service is absent.
• Email adoption is near-universal among working-age adults (>90%) and strong among seniors (~80%), reflecting the county’s older age structure.
• Connectivity is improving with ongoing fiber builds, but pockets of low-density, forested areas still face limited high-speed options; adoption is rising as new service becomes available.

Local density/connectivity facts:

• Entirely rural with long distances between towns; digital communication is critical for healthcare, government services, and commerce, reinforcing email as a primary channel.

Mobile phone usage in Iron County, Michigan — summary and state-level contrasts

Topline user estimates

• Total mobile phone users: ≈10,000 residents, or about 86% of the county’s population.
• Smartphone users: ≈9,000 residents, about 77% of the total population and roughly 86% of residents age 12+.
• Seniors (65+) with smartphones: ≈2,650, or about three in four older adults. Method note: Estimates apply current national smartphone ownership rates by age (Pew Research Center, 2023–2024) to Iron County’s age structure from the 2020 Census (total population 11,631; older-than-average profile).

Demographic breakdown and usage implications

• Older population mix: Approximately 30% of Iron County residents are 65+, versus roughly 18% statewide. This age skew pulls down overall smartphone penetration relative to Michigan as a whole, even though adoption among older adults has risen.
• Working-age adults (18–64): High smartphone adoption (roughly mid- to high‑80s percent), but absolute user counts are smaller than similarly sized downstate counties because of out‑migration and aging.
• Teens (12–17): Near-universal smartphone ownership (mid‑90s%), but a smaller teen cohort than the state average limits total teen users.
• Income and cost sensitivity: Median household income is notably below the Michigan median, which translates to higher price sensitivity and greater uptake of lower-cost plans and MVNOs than in metro counties.

Digital infrastructure and coverage context

• Geography and density: Large land area (≈1,166 square miles of land) with low population density (~10 residents per square mile) makes radio coverage expensive to build and maintain per user, with more frequent fringe/weak‑signal areas than the Michigan average.
• Coverage pattern: Strongest, most reliable LTE/5G service clusters around population centers (Iron River, Crystal Falls) and along key corridors (US‑2, M‑69). Signal attenuation and dead zones are more common in forested interiors, lake-adjacent lowlands, and hilly terrain away from highways.
• Backhaul and fixed broadband: A substantially higher share of households lack a wireline broadband subscription than the statewide rate (roughly one-quarter vs about one in seven in Michigan), indicating materially greater reliance on cellular data and hotspots for home connectivity than the state average.
• 5G buildout: Low-band 5G is present along primary corridors, but mid-band 5G density and in‑building performance trail urban Michigan, so the county sees less consistent 5G throughput and more LTE fallbacks than metro areas.

How Iron County differs from Michigan overall

• Lower overall smartphone penetration driven by an older population mix, despite high adoption among younger adults.
• Higher reliance on mobile data for home internet due to fewer affordable, performant wireline options compared with the state average.
• Greater coverage variability: more noticeable transitions between strong corridor coverage and fringe areas, more indoor coverage challenges, and slower, more selective mid‑band 5G deployment than in metro counties.
• Plan mix skews more value‑oriented (greater MVNO and prepaid usage) relative to downstate urban markets, reflecting income and coverage considerations.

Key figures at a glance

• Population: 11,631 (2020 Census)
• Estimated mobile users: ~10,000 (≈86% of residents)
• Estimated smartphone users: ~9,000 (≈77% of residents; ≈86% of residents age 12+)
• Seniors 65+: ~30% of population; ~75% smartphone adoption within this group
• Households without fixed broadband: roughly 1.5–2x the statewide share, increasing dependence on cellular connectivity

These statistics and insights reflect the county’s older age structure, rural geography, and sparser network infrastructure, which together produce distinctly different usage patterns and coverage realities than Michigan’s urban and suburban counties.

Iron County, MI — social media usage snapshot (2024–2025)

How many residents use social media

• Adult social-media penetration (modeled): 75–82% of adults use at least one platform. Rationale: Pew Research Center reports 83% of U.S. adults use social media; rural/older counties like Iron trend a few points lower due to age mix.

Most-used platforms among adults in Iron County (estimated share of adults using each)

• YouTube: 75–80%
• Facebook: 65–70%
• Instagram: 30–40%
• Pinterest: 28–32% (skews female)
• TikTok: 25–30% (skews under 35)
• Snapchat: 20–25% (strongest under 25)
• WhatsApp: 18–22%
• LinkedIn: 15–20% (primarily working-age professionals)
• X (Twitter): 15–20%
• Reddit: 12–16% These are localized estimates derived from Pew Research Center’s 2024 U.S. adoption rates, adjusted slightly downward for rural/older age structure typical of Iron County.

Age patterns (adoption and platform mix)

• 13–17: Snapchat and TikTok dominant; Instagram widely used; Facebook used mainly for events/school/sports info.
• 18–29: Near-universal social use (≈95%+ nationally). Heavy on Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, YouTube; Facebook secondary.
• 30–49: Very high social use (≈90%+ nationally). Facebook and YouTube lead; Instagram meaningful; TikTok growing; Messenger/WhatsApp for coordination; Pinterest notable among parents.
• 50–64: High but lower than younger cohorts (≈70–80% nationally). Facebook is the hub; YouTube strong; Pinterest moderate; Instagram/TikTok selective.
• 65+: About half to ~60% use at least one platform nationally; in Iron County expect Facebook and YouTube to dominate; TikTok/Instagram limited but growing via family content and local news clips.

Gender patterns (directional)

• Women: Over-index on Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest; strong engagement with local groups, school/sports updates, events, health/wellness, crafts/DIY.
• Men: Over-index on YouTube, Reddit, X; strong interest in outdoors (hunting/fishing/ATV), mechanics/DIY, local sports, and policy/news commentary.

Behavioral trends observed in rural/Upper Peninsula contexts, applicable to Iron County

• Community-first usage: Facebook Groups/Pages for towns, schools, churches, fire/EMS, and local events drive daily logins; high interaction on lost-and-found, road conditions, and closures.
• Marketplace-heavy: Facebook Marketplace is a primary channel for autos, equipment, outdoor gear, and household items; buy–sell–trade groups are highly active.
• Video grows everywhere: Short-form video (Reels/Shorts/TikTok) outperforms static posts, especially for local business promos, real-estate walk-throughs, “how-to,” and seasonal recreation.
• Local news via social: Many rely on Facebook Pages, YouTube clips, and shared links for county news, school sports highlights, obituaries, and weather updates.
• Seasonality: Summer/fall see spikes tied to tourism, fairs, hunting/fishing, trails; winter content shifts to snow sports, closures, and conditions.
• Messaging: Facebook Messenger is the default; WhatsApp is niche (family, shift workers, cross-border/immigrant contacts).
• Time-of-day and day-of-week: Engagement tends to peak early morning (6–8 a.m.), lunch (noon–1 p.m.), and evenings (7–9 p.m.) Central Time; weekend mornings and Sunday evenings are reliably strong.
• Trust and repetition: Word-of-mouth via groups and repeated posts in community forums outperform one-off ads; consistent posting cadence matters more than high production value.

What this means for outreach in Iron County

• Anchor on Facebook and YouTube; add Instagram for under-45 reach and TikTok for youth/young families.
• Use Groups, local Pages, and Marketplace for discovery; prioritize short videos and event-based posts.
• Post on local-peak times; cross-post video to Reels/Shorts/TikTok; include practical info (hours, directions, pricing) and community tie-ins (schools, teams, causes).

Sources and method

• Platform percentages: Pew Research Center, Social Media Use in 2024 (national adult adoption by platform), localized by applying rural/older-age adjustments.
• Behavioral trends: Synthesis of Pew findings plus observed patterns in rural Midwestern/Upper Peninsula communities. Note: True platform-by-county measurements are not publicly reported; figures above are the best-available, methodical estimates tailored to Iron County’s rural and older demographic profile.