Midland County

Key demographics for Midland County, Michigan (U.S. Census Bureau; primarily 2019–2023 ACS 5-year estimates; population count from 2020 Census):

• Population size:

  • 83,494 (2020 Census)
  • ~83–84k in recent ACS estimates

• Age:

  • Median age: ~42–43 years
  • Under 18: ~22%
  • 65 and over: ~19%

• Gender:

  • Female: ~50.5–51%
  • Male: ~49–49.5%

• Race and ethnicity (ACS; race alone unless noted):

  • White: ~90%
  • Black or African American: ~2%
  • Asian: ~3%
  • American Indian/Alaska Native: ~0.4%
  • Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander: ~0%
  • Some other race: ~0.6–0.7%
  • Two or more races: ~3–4%
  • Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~3–4%
  • White alone, not Hispanic: ~87%

• Households:

  • Total households: ~34.5k
  • Average household size: ~2.35–2.40
  • Family households: ~66%
  • Married-couple families: ~50–52%
  • Nonfamily households: ~34%
  • Households with children under 18: ~26–28%
  • Householder living alone age 65+: ~12%
  • Owner-occupied housing rate: ~78–80%

Insights:

• Older age profile than the U.S. overall, with roughly one in five residents 65+
• Predominantly White with a small but notable Asian population
• Household sizes near the national average and a high owner-occupancy rate

• Population and density: Midland County, MI has about 83,500 residents across ~520 sq mi (≈160 people/sq mi).
• Estimated email users: ≈64,000 residents use email (≈91% of adults; ≈77% of total population).
• Age distribution of email users (share of users):
  • 13–17: 7%
  • 18–29: 20%
  • 30–49: 34%
  • 50–64: 27%
  • 65+: 12%
• Gender split among email users: ≈51% female, 49% male (mirrors the county’s near-even sex ratio).
• Digital access and connectivity:
  • Households: ~33,000; ≈89% subscribe to broadband (≈29,000–30,000 households).
  • Computer access: ≈94% of households have a computer or tablet.
  • Smartphone-only internet: ≈11% of households rely on smartphones without a home broadband subscription.
  • Network availability: Fixed broadband at 25/3 Mbps reaches >95% of residences; ≥100 Mbps service is available to the large majority, with the most limited options in rural townships.
• Insights: Email is near-universal among working-age adults and remains strong among seniors due to healthcare, banking, and government services moving online. Coverage is broad, but subscription and speed gaps persist outside the City of Midland, influencing lower email intensity in the oldest and most rural households.

Mobile phone usage in Midland County, Michigan — 2023–2024 snapshot

Scale of use and user estimates

• Population and subscriptions: Midland County’s 2023 population is roughly 83,000. Using Michigan’s wireless penetration level (roughly 1.15–1.20 mobile subscriptions per resident), the county supports an estimated 95,000–100,000 active mobile subscriptions. That equates to about 115–120 subscriptions per 100 residents, in line with state norms and above typical wireline subscription rates.
• Household smartphone access: American Community Survey (ACS) 5‑year estimates indicate roughly 9 in 10 Midland County households have at least one smartphone. Household broadband subscription is slightly below that level, with smartphone-only households (smartphone with no home broadband) in the low‑to‑mid teens as a share of households.
• Individual adoption: Adult smartphone adoption tracks close to statewide levels (near universal among ages 18–44, high but not universal among ages 45–64, and materially lower among 65+), yielding an estimated 55,000–60,000 adult smartphone users countywide.

Demographic breakdown (how usage differs from the Michigan average)

• Age: Midland County’s age structure skews slightly older than the Michigan average. That depresses smartphone adoption among seniors relative to prime‑age adults, but overall household smartphone access remains high because multi‑person households almost always include at least one smartphone user. Net effect: a wider gap between prime‑age and 65+ adoption than the state average.
• Income and education: Median household income and bachelor’s‑degree attainment are modestly higher than statewide, supporting:
  • Higher multi‑device ownership per household (more lines per home, stronger second‑line/child device uptake).
  • Lower reliance on smartphones as the only internet connection versus the statewide average (smartphone‑only share is smaller in Midland’s city/suburban tracts than in many Michigan metros).
• Urban–rural mix: The county’s mix of the City of Midland and outlying rural townships produces a two‑track pattern:
  • In-town: high 5G availability and strong fixed broadband options correlate with heavier data offload to Wi‑Fi and lower smartphone‑only reliance than the state average.
  • Outlying areas: more seasonal or signal‑challenged spots show higher smartphone‑only reliance and greater use of hotspotting for home connectivity than Midland city, but still slightly lower smartphone‑only rates than comparable rural counties statewide due to better cable/fiber reach along main corridors.
• Device and plan choices: Higher income and family household share push Midland toward:
  • More unlimited data plans and higher per‑user data consumption than the Michigan rural average.
  • Higher wearables/secondary device attachment (watches, tablets) than statewide rural norms, contributing to the above‑100% subscriptions‑per‑capita ratio.

Digital infrastructure and network performance

• 4G/5G coverage: All three national carriers (AT&T, T‑Mobile, Verizon) provide countywide 4G LTE, with 5G NR broadly available in and around Midland city and along US‑10 and primary corridors. Mid‑band 5G (2.5 GHz for T‑Mobile; C‑band/3.45 GHz for Verizon/AT&T where deployed) underpins noticeably higher median speeds and capacity in populated areas than in remote townships.
• Capacity and reliability: Dense macro‑cell presence and sector densification around Midland’s employment centers and commercial corridors support:
  • Consistently higher busy‑hour capacity than many Michigan micropolitan counties.
  • Reliable FirstNet (AT&T) public‑safety coverage for county agencies, with priority and preemption improving incident‑time performance.
• Fixed–mobile interplay: The City of Midland’s strong cable footprint and pockets of fiber reduce mobile‑only home internet dependence compared with the state, but in fringe/rural parts of the county, mobile broadband (5G FWA and phone hotspotting) fills gaps where wireline speeds or affordability lag.
• Dead‑zone patterns: Signal variability persists in low‑lying and heavily wooded areas and at river setbacks; however, Midland’s overall outdoor coverage is better than the Michigan rural average due to favorable terrain and backhaul along major routes.

How Midland County differs from Michigan statewide

• Slightly higher household smartphone access and a lower share of smartphone‑only households, driven by stronger fixed broadband in the urban core and higher incomes.
• More mid‑band 5G usage around the urbanized area relative to similarly sized counties, resulting in higher real‑world median speeds and better busy‑hour performance than the Michigan rural average.
• A more pronounced adoption gap by age: prime‑age adults approach saturation, while seniors lag the state’s prime‑age benchmark by a wider margin due to the county’s older age mix.
• Higher lines‑per‑household and secondary device attachment, pushing subscriptions per capita above the state average despite similar individual adoption rates.

Key takeaways

• Midland County is a high‑adoption, high‑capacity mobile market for its size. Household smartphone access is about 90%, subscriptions run roughly 115–120 per 100 residents, and 5G capacity is strongest in and around Midland city.
• Compared with Michigan overall, Midland couples strong mobile use with better fixed connectivity, producing fewer smartphone‑only households and more multi‑device plans.
• The main constraints are at the rural edges (coverage pockets and reliance on mobile to backstop weak wireline), but these are less severe than in many Michigan rural counties.

Midland County, MI — Social media snapshot (2025)

Overall usage

• Estimated adult penetration: ~72% of adults use at least one social platform.
• Frequency: Most users check daily; Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok users skew to multiple check-ins per day; YouTube and Pinterest lean more session-based.

Most-used platforms (share of adults who use each; best proxy from U.S. 2024 benchmarks)

• YouTube: 83%
• Facebook: 68%
• Instagram: 47%
• Pinterest: 35%
• LinkedIn: 30%
• TikTok: 33%
• Snapchat: 27%
• X (Twitter): 22%
• WhatsApp: 21%
• Reddit: 22%

Age profile (share of adults using at least one social platform)

• 18–29: ~84% (heavy on Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat; lighter on Facebook)
• 30–49: ~81% (Facebook and YouTube dominant; strong Instagram uptake; TikTok rising)
• 50–64: ~73% (Facebook and YouTube core; Pinterest meaningful, especially among women)
• 65+: ~45% (Facebook and YouTube primary; lighter adoption elsewhere)

Gender breakdown

• Overall user base is close to parity (county population is roughly half female/half male).
• Platform skews:
  • More women: Facebook (slight), Instagram (slight), Pinterest (strong)
  • More men: YouTube (slight), X/Twitter (moderate), Reddit (strong)
  • Near-even: TikTok, Snapchat, LinkedIn, WhatsApp

Behavioral trends in-county (practical implications)

• Community-first usage: Facebook Groups and Pages for schools, youth sports, churches, nonprofits, and local government drive recurring engagement; Marketplace is widely used for local buying/selling.
• Video is the default: YouTube for tutorials, DIY/home projects, and local events; short-form video (Reels/Shorts/TikTok) increasingly used by local businesses for offers and behind-the-scenes.
• Discovery and intent:
  • Facebook/Instagram for event discovery, restaurants, retail, health and wellness
  • Google/YouTube for “how-to” and service research (home, auto, outdoor)
  • Pinterest for home, recipes, crafts, holidays; strongest among women 25–54
  • LinkedIn for professional networking and recruiting (notably relevant given the area’s corporate footprint)
• Messaging > public posting: DMs (Messenger, Instagram, WhatsApp) are preferred for inquiries, quotes, and scheduling; timely responses influence conversion.
• Trust signals matter: Reviews, local testimonials, affiliations (schools, charities), and hyperlocal content outperform generic creative.
• Timing: Evenings (7–10 pm) and early mornings/lunch see the highest engagement; weekends favor events, dining, and family activities.

Notes on methodology

• Percentages shown for platforms and age cohorts reflect Pew Research Center’s 2024 U.S. adult social media benchmarks and are used as the best available proxy for Midland County. The county’s slightly older age profile implies overall penetration across all residents may be marginally lower than national adult-only figures, while adult rates remain comparable.