Lake County

Lake County, Michigan — key demographics (latest U.S. Census/ACS data)

Population size

• Total population: ~12,100 (2020 Decennial Census; small net change since)

Age

• Median age: ~51 years (ACS 5-year)
• Under 18: ~17%
• 65 and over: ~28–30%

Gender

• Male: ~50–52%
• Female: ~48–50%

Racial/ethnic composition (shares of total)

• White (non-Hispanic): ~83–86%
• Black or African American: ~9–12%
• American Indian/Alaska Native: ~1–2%
• Asian: ~0–0.5%
• Two or more races: ~3–5%
• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~3–4%

Household data

• Households: ~5,000–5,300
• Average household size: ~2.1–2.2
• Family households: ~60–62% of households; married-couple families ~40–45%
• Owner-occupied housing rate: ~75–80% (notable seasonal/second-home presence)
• Median household income: roughly mid-$40,000s
• Persons in poverty: roughly low-20s percent

Insights

• Small, aging population with a median age notably above the U.S. average.
• Predominantly White with a comparatively higher Black share than many nearby rural Michigan counties (historical Idlewild community).
• High owner-occupancy and small household size suggest many single/older households and seasonal residences.
• Income and poverty metrics indicate economic challenges relative to state averages.

Lake County, MI email landscape (estimates derived from recent ACS and Pew data)

• Population and density: ≈12,200 residents; ≈20–22 people per square mile (very rural).
• Connectivity: ≈63–68% of households have a broadband subscription; ≈77–81% have a computer. About 10–14% are mobile‑only internet users; ≈22–26% lack home internet service.
• Estimated email users: ≈7,000–7,800 adult email users countywide (driven by internet adoption and high email use among internet users).
• Age distribution of email users:
  • 18–34: ≈20–24%
  • 35–54: ≈26–30%
  • 55–64: ≈18–22%
  • 65+: ≈28–32%
• Gender split of email users: roughly even, female ≈50–52%, male ≈48–50%.
• Trends and insights:
  • Email usage is growing slowly, with strongest adoption among 35–54 and 65+ as telehealth/government services move online.
  • Mobile‑first behavior is rising (notably among lower‑income and seasonal/remote residents), but email remains a core channel tied to services and commerce.
  • Digital divide persists: lower broadband penetration than Michigan’s average (~82%) limits consistent email access in parts of the county.
  • Connectivity is uneven: wired high‑speed options thin outside population centers; fixed wireless and satellite commonly fill gaps.

Lake County, Michigan: Mobile phone usage summary (focus on what’s different from the state)

Scale and user estimates

• Population baseline: 12,096 (2020 Decennial Census).
• Estimated mobile phone users (residents who carry a mobile phone): about 9,300.
• Estimated smartphone users: about 7,800.
• These counts reflect the county’s older age structure and lower incomes relative to Michigan overall, which depress smartphone take-up compared with the state.

Ownership, access, and subscriptions (distinct from Michigan averages)

• Households with a smartphone (ACS 2018–2022): ≈79% in Lake County vs ≈89% statewide. The gap is driven by a larger share of older and lower‑income households.
• No home internet subscription of any kind (ACS 2018–2022): ≈22% in Lake vs ≈12% statewide. Lake County residents are more likely to live offline or to depend on mobile service intermittently.
• Cellular data plan as the primary/only home internet (ACS 2018–2022): ≈28% in Lake vs ≈15% statewide. Reliance on cellular for household connectivity is roughly double the Michigan average.
• Practical effect: more households tie daily internet use to mobile coverage/quotas, with greater sensitivity to signal quality, data caps, and prepaid plan costs than is typical elsewhere in Michigan.

Demographic drivers of use

• Age: Median age is just over 51 years (significantly older than Michigan’s ~40). Smartphone adoption among seniors is lower; a meaningful minority of 65+ residents rely on basic/flip phones or shared household devices.
• Income: Median household income is in the low‑$40,000s (well below Michigan’s high‑$60,000s). Budget constraints increase the prevalence of prepaid lines, MVNOs, and lower‑cost Android devices; device upgrade cycles are longer than the state norm.
• Race/ethnicity: The county is majority White with a notable Black community centered around Idlewild. Unlike the state, a higher share of mobile-only households is observed across both White and Black residents due to rural infrastructure gaps and cost barriers.
• Seasonality: Tourism and seasonal homes (lakes, ORV trails, national forest access) produce large weekend/summer spikes in active devices, a pattern far more pronounced than in most Michigan counties.

Network and digital infrastructure

• Coverage pattern:
  • Verizon generally offers the most consistent rural coverage footprint; AT&T performs well in populated corridors and provides FirstNet for public safety; T‑Mobile has expanded low‑band 5G along US‑10 and M‑37 but still has gaps away from corridors.
  • Persistent dead zones exist in heavily forested areas and low‑density townships; signal reliability drops quickly off the main highways compared with Michigan’s urban/suburban counties.
• 5G reality: Mostly low‑band/sub‑6 GHz 5G; mid‑band capacity is present near towns/corridors but less pervasive than statewide norms. mmWave is effectively absent. Practical user impact: 5G often behaves like a strong LTE experience rather than a step‑change in capacity.
• Home broadband interplay:
  • Cable/fiber are available in and immediately around Baldwin and a few denser pockets; outside those areas many locations still lack a wired option that meets modern benchmarks.
  • Fixed wireless (licensed and unlicensed) and satellite (including LEO) play a larger role than in the state overall.
  • State/federal programs (e.g., ROBIN and BEAD) have prioritized Lake County because of a high share of unserved locations; multiple fiber builds are slated through the mid‑2020s, which should gradually reduce cellular‑only dependence.
• Public safety and resilience: Agencies rely on AT&T FirstNet with mutual‑aid interoperability across carriers. Coverage redundancy is thinner than in metro Michigan; prolonged power or backhaul outages can create larger service holes than the state norm.

Usage behaviors and market implications (how Lake County diverges from Michigan)

• Higher cellular-only households and weaker wired backstops make mobile service a primary on‑ramp to the internet, not just a complement. Data allowances and hotspot policies matter more to everyday connectivity than in most Michigan counties.
• Device mix skews more budget‑conscious, with longer replacement cycles; bring‑your‑own‑device and prepaid/MVNO plans have above‑average penetration.
• Mobility patterns tied to recreation (trailheads, water access, campgrounds) create time‑and‑place congestion that’s atypical for Michigan’s urban counties, stressing sector capacity on peak weekends.
• Digital inclusion efforts must emphasize both affordability and coverage: subsidies alone do not solve gaps where signal is weak; conversely, new fiber without adoption support will not materially shift mobile‑first habits.
• Near‑term outlook: As fiber extends beyond Baldwin and key corridors, expect a gradual decline in cellular‑only home internet and improved indoor coverage via Wi‑Fi calling. Until then, Lake County will continue to exhibit higher mobile reliance, more pronounced coverage variability, and more prepaid usage than Michigan overall.

Social media usage in Lake County, Michigan (2025 snapshot)

Key user stats

• Adults using at least one social platform monthly: 74%
• Daily users (use at least once per day): 60% of adults
• Average platforms used per person: 2.6
• Age-group usage (share of people in each group using any social platform monthly):
  • 13–17: 92%
  • 18–29: 95%
  • 30–49: 86%
  • 50–64: 74%
  • 65+: 52%
• Gender among social media users: 53% women, 47% men

Most-used platforms (monthly reach among adults; multi-platform use means totals exceed 100%)

• YouTube: 76%
• Facebook: 66%
• Instagram: 34%
• Pinterest: 28%
• TikTok: 24%
• Snapchat: 20%
• X (Twitter): 14%
• Reddit: 11%
• LinkedIn: 11%
• Nextdoor: 6%

Behavioral trends and patterns

• Facebook as the community hub: Heavy use of Groups for local news, school updates, events, churches, yard sales, and Marketplace; high engagement with public safety and county/municipal pages.
• Video-first, practical content: YouTube dominates for DIY, home/auto repair, outdoor recreation (fishing, hunting, trails), and product reviews; a large share consumed on connected TVs.
• Older-skew effect: County’s older age mix raises Facebook and Pinterest usage and moderates TikTok/Snapchat relative to statewide averages; Instagram growth is strongest among 18–29.
• Local information seeking: Weather, road conditions, power outages, and service changes drive spikes; official posts and timely updates outperform generic content.
• Messaging and sharing: Facebook sharing and reposting from regional outlets is common; WhatsApp use remains limited, with SMS/Messenger more typical.
• Activity timing: Engagement peaks early morning (6–8 a.m.) and evenings (7–10 p.m.), with weekend mid‑day bumps tied to events and Marketplace browsing.
• Trust and verification: Closed community groups are influential for recommendations but can amplify rumors; verified local sources see higher sustained engagement.

Method note

• Figures are model-based estimates for Lake County in 2025, built by applying recent U.S./Michigan platform adoption benchmarks (Pew Research and similar 2024–2025 studies) to the county’s age–sex profile from the American Community Survey. Values rounded to whole percentages.