Missaukee County

Key demographics of Missaukee County, Michigan

Population

• 15,052 (2020 Census)

Age (ACS 2018–2022)

• Median age: ~41 years
• Under 18: ~25%
• 65 and over: ~19%

Gender (ACS 2018–2022)

• Female: ~49%
• Male: ~51%

Race and ethnicity (ACS 2018–2022)

• White alone: ~95–96%
• Black or African American alone: ~0.4–0.5%
• American Indian/Alaska Native alone: ~0.6–0.8%
• Asian alone: ~0.3%
• Two or more races: ~2–3%
• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~2%
• White alone, not Hispanic: ~94–95%

Households (ACS 2018–2022)

• Households: ~5,700–5,900
• Average household size: ~2.6–2.8
• Family households: ~70% of households (majority married-couple)
• Households with children under 18: ~30–35%
• Housing is predominantly owner-occupied in a largely rural setting

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; American Community Survey 2018–2022 5-year estimates.

Missaukee County, Michigan (2020 Census pop. 15,052) spans roughly 565 sq mi with about 27 people per square mile—low density that raises last‑mile broadband costs and shapes digital access patterns.

Estimated email users: ~9,900 residents (about 66% of total population; ~86% of adults), modeled from rural internet adoption and U.S. email-use rates.

Age distribution of email users (est. counts):

• 13–17: 8% (~790)
• 18–29: 14% (~1,390)
• 30–49: 35% (~3,470)
• 50–64: 27% (~2,670)
• 65+: 16% (~1,580)

Gender split: approximately even, mirroring the population (about 49–51% each), with no meaningful difference in email adoption by gender.

Digital access trends and connectivity:

• Rural internet adoption and near-universal email use among connected adults drive the high user base; smartphone access plays a key role.
• Household broadband subscription locally trails Michigan’s statewide level (~87% of households, ACS 2022), with more reliance on DSL/fixed wireless than fiber outside town centers.
• Coverage is broad for 4G mobile data; 5G and fiber are more limited in sparsely populated areas, which influences heavier mobile-email usage.

Overall insight: Despite rural infrastructure constraints, email is a mature, near-ubiquitous channel for adults in Missaukee County, skewing toward middle and older age groups.

Summary of mobile phone usage in Missaukee County, Michigan (with county-level baselines and state comparisons)

Baseline population and context

• Population: 15,052 (2020 Decennial Census). Rural county with dispersed settlement; county seat: Lake City.
• Age structure: Older than the Michigan average (median age in rural northern Lower Peninsula counties is typically 2–4 years higher than the state median of ~40). This skews device adoption patterns downward among seniors relative to state averages.
• Economic profile: Median household income below the Michigan median, with a higher share of blue‑collar and seasonal employment. Price sensitivity is higher, affecting carrier mix and plan types.

User estimates (2025, derived from Census baselines + recent national/rural adoption research)

• Adult smartphone users: Approximately 9,500–10,200 residents.
  • Method: 11,400 adults (76% of 15,052) × 84–89% rural adult smartphone ownership. Rural ownership trails nationwide (90%) and Michigan statewide (~89–91%) by several points; Missaukee’s older age mix pulls it to the lower end of rural adoption.
• Households with at least one smartphone: Roughly 4,800–5,100 households.
  • Method: County households ≈ 5,600–5,900; smartphone-using households in rural MI typically 82–88% vs Michigan ~88–92%.
• Mobile-only internet households (no fixed broadband, rely on cellular): Estimated 10–15% of households, higher than Michigan overall (~6–9%). This reflects gaps in fixed infrastructure and price sensitivity.
• Prepaid and value carriers: Estimated 28–35% of smartphone lines (vs Michigan ~20–25%). Prepaid share is elevated in rural, lower‑income counties.

Demographic breakdown and adoption patterns (relative to Michigan)

• Age:
  • 18–34: Near-parity with state in smartphone use (≈95%+), but smaller cohort share than in Michigan overall; drives fewer high-end device sales per capita.
  • 35–64: High adoption (≈90–94%), slightly under state by 1–3 points; heavier use of hotspotting where fixed broadband is weak.
  • 65+: Adoption materially below state (≈68–75% vs statewide seniors ≈75–80%); more basic/low-cost Android devices and simplified plans.
• Income:
  • Lower-income households show higher prepaid usage and plan switching; device financing is common through third‑party retailers rather than carrier flagships.
• Race/ethnicity:
  • The county’s population is predominantly White; disparities seen at the state level by race are less visible locally. Socioeconomic and age factors dominate adoption differences.
• Work patterns:
  • Trades, agriculture, forestry, and seasonal tourism create daytime mobility across wide areas; voice/text reliability on secondary roads and in forested tracts remains a decisional factor when choosing carriers.

Digital infrastructure and coverage characteristics

• Radio access technologies in market: Countywide LTE coverage from all three national carriers; low‑band 5G present in and around Lake City, McBain, along M‑55/M‑66 corridors, and near population clusters. Coverage transitions to LTE in forested and low‑lying areas; mid‑band 5G is largely limited to towns and primary corridors.
• Performance profile (crowdsource patterns typical of rural northern Lower Peninsula):
  • In‑town: Mid‑band 5G frequently delivers 100–300 Mbps downlink with strong uplink (15–30 Mbps), supporting reliable hotspot use and video calling.
  • Between towns/forested areas: LTE or low‑band 5G often 5–40 Mbps downlink with variable uplink (<5–15 Mbps); video upload and real‑time collaboration can be inconsistent.
• Fixed broadband interplay:
  • Cable and fiber are available in town centers; DSL and fixed wireless dominate fringes; some pockets lack wired options. As a result, cellular is more often used as a primary or contingency home connection than at the state level.
• Resilience and seasonality:
  • Summer population inflows around lakes and campgrounds drive peak‑season congestion on weekends/evenings; network upgrades tend to prioritize lakeshore/town nodes first. Winter storms and power events have outsized impact on outlying sectors with fewer redundant backhaul paths.

Key ways Missaukee County differs from Michigan overall

• Lower smartphone penetration and a higher share of seniors reduce per‑capita smartphone usage by a few percentage points versus statewide.
• Greater reliance on prepaid/value carriers and mobile‑only home internet due to income and infrastructure gaps.
• Coverage is more heterogeneous: strong 5G in towns and along main corridors; rapid falloff to LTE and reduced uplink between towns—this gap is narrower in Michigan’s urban/suburban counties.
• Device mix skews more toward mid‑tier Android and carrier MVNOs; fewer ultra‑premium devices per capita than statewide averages.
• Hotspotting and cellular-as-backup are meaningfully more common, especially among households outside the cable/fiber footprints.

Implications for planning and service design

• Prioritize uplink and capacity on corridor and recreation‑area sectors during peak seasons.
• Expand mid‑band 5G to secondary roads and population clusters beyond Lake City/McBain to narrow the town‑to‑rural performance gap.
• Offer competitively priced prepaid and MVNO plans with robust hotspot allowances; bundle fixed wireless where feasible.
• Senior‑focused onboarding and support can move the 65+ segment closer to statewide adoption levels.

Social media usage in Missaukee County, Michigan (2025)

Quick snapshot

• Adult population: ≈11,700 (of ≈15,100 total residents)
• Adults using at least one social platform: 81% ±3 (≈9,500 people)
• Primary access: mobile-first; broadband availability is lower than urban Michigan, so Facebook and YouTube dominate for reliability and ease of use

Most-used platforms among adults (share of adults who use each, modeled local estimate)

• YouTube: 79%
• Facebook: 72%
• Instagram: 40%
• Pinterest: 34%
• TikTok: 29%
• Snapchat: 24%
• WhatsApp: 16%
• LinkedIn: 18%
• X (Twitter): 16%
• Reddit: 15%
• Nextdoor: 9%

Age groups (share of each age group using each platform; modeled local estimate)

• 18–29: YouTube 94%, Instagram 76%, Snapchat 68%, TikTok 62%, Facebook 47%, Reddit 35%, X 28%, Pinterest 28%, LinkedIn 28%, WhatsApp 20%
• 30–49: YouTube 92%, Facebook 77%, Instagram 58%, TikTok 39%, Snapchat 31%, Pinterest 40%, LinkedIn 29%, X 22%, Reddit 18%, WhatsApp 18%
• 50–64: Facebook 73%, YouTube 83%, Pinterest 36%, Instagram 29%, TikTok 19%, Snapchat 10%, LinkedIn 13%, X 14%, Reddit 9%, WhatsApp 12%
• 65+: Facebook 50%, YouTube 49%, Pinterest 18%, Instagram 13%, TikTok 8%, Snapchat 4%, LinkedIn 5%, X 9%, Reddit 4%, WhatsApp 8%

Gender breakdown (share of men/women who use each platform; modeled local estimate)

• Women: Facebook 76%, YouTube 77%, Instagram 46%, Pinterest 51%, TikTok 33%, Snapchat 26%, WhatsApp 15%, LinkedIn 17%, X 12%, Reddit 9%
• Men: YouTube 81%, Facebook 68%, Instagram 35%, Pinterest 16%, TikTok 24%, Snapchat 21%, WhatsApp 17%, LinkedIn 19%, X 19%, Reddit 21%
• Overall user base split: ≈52% women, 48% men

Behavioral trends

• Facebook is the local hub: heavy use of Groups (schools, churches, 4-H, youth sports), county services, hunting/fishing and buy–sell–trade. Facebook Marketplace participation is high among active users.
• Video-first consumption: YouTube leads for DIY, farm and equipment repair, home projects, and outdoor content; short-form (Reels/TikTok) grows among 18–34 for homesteading, crafts, and local highlights.
• Messaging: Facebook Messenger is the dominant private channel; WhatsApp remains niche but present in some workplaces and for family ties out of area.
• Posting vs. lurking: Most adults are viewers rather than frequent posters; engagement concentrates in local Groups, event posts, and Marketplace listings.
• Timing: Engagement spikes 6–8 a.m. and 7–10 p.m.; weekends see more Marketplace and event-related activity.
• Trust and information: Residents rely on Facebook Groups and local pages for weather alerts, road conditions, school updates, and community notices; official local pages and school districts drive high interaction.
• Business use: Local SMBs see best traction with practical updates (hours, closures), promos, and visual posts (before/after, product demos). Cross-posting short video to Facebook Reels and Instagram extends reach beyond TikTok-only audiences.

Method note

• Figures are 2025 modeled local estimates derived from Pew Research Center’s 2024 U.S. platform adoption by age, gender, and community type, adjusted for a rural Michigan county age mix and adult population from recent Census estimates. Margins are typically ±3–5 percentage points.