Montcalm County

Montcalm County, Michigan — key demographics (U.S. Census Bureau; 2020 Decennial Census and 2018–2022 ACS 5-year estimates)

Population size

• Total population: 66,614 (2020 Census)

Age

• Median age: ~41 years
• Under 18: ~23%
• 65 and over: ~18%

Gender

• Female: ~50%
• Male: ~50%

Race and ethnicity

• White alone: ~93%
• Black or African American alone: ~1%
• American Indian and Alaska Native alone: ~1%
• Asian alone: ~0.5%
• Two or more races: ~4%
• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~5%

Households and families

• Total households: ~25,000
• Average household size: ~2.6 persons
• Family households: ~70% of households
• Homeownership rate: ~80%

Insights

• The county is predominantly non-Hispanic White, with small but present racial/ethnic minorities and a modest Hispanic/Latino population.
• Age structure skews slightly older than the U.S. overall, with nearly one in five residents age 65+.
• Household patterns reflect a largely owner-occupied, family-oriented housing stock with mid-sized households.

• Population and density: Montcalm County has about 66,600 residents across ~720 sq mi, ~92 people per sq mi (well below Michigan’s ~170/sq mi), indicating a predominantly rural profile.
• Estimated email users: 50,500 residents use email regularly. Basis: ~77% adults (51,300) with ~92% email adoption, plus ~80% adoption among ages 13–17.
• Age distribution of email users (share of users): 13–17: 6.7%; 18–29: 15.7%; 30–49: 32.6%; 50–64: 24.3%; 65+: 20.7%.
• Gender split among users: Approximately even (about 50% female, 50% male), reflecting near-parity adoption by gender.
• Digital access and device context:
  • ~91% of households have a computer.
  • ~83% of households have a broadband internet subscription (includes cable, fiber, DSL, or cellular data plans), leaving roughly 17% without broadband at home.
  • Practical implication: Email is accessible to the large majority of households, but about 1 in 6 lack home broadband and may rely on mobile or public access points.
• Local connectivity insights: Rural density and dispersed townships create last-mile challenges; broadband uptake is strong but trails Michigan’s more urban counties. Fiber footprint is concentrated near population centers, while outlying areas lean on DSL and fixed wireless, contributing to the higher non-broadband share.

Mobile phone usage in Montcalm County, Michigan — summary and how it differs from statewide patterns

Headline estimates (2024)

• Population and households: ~67,000 residents and ~25,000–26,000 households.
• Mobile users: 50,000–53,000 people use a mobile phone of some kind; 44,000–47,000 are smartphone users. These figures reflect rural-Michigan adoption levels applied to Montcalm’s age and income mix.
• Household penetration: 22,000–23,000 households have at least one smartphone; 10–14% of households rely on a cellular data plan as their primary home internet connection (notably higher than Michigan’s ~6–8%).

Demographic drivers of usage (how Montcalm differs from the state)

• Age: The county skews slightly older than Michigan overall, with a larger 55+ and 65+ share. That translates to:
  • Slightly lower smartphone adoption among seniors than the state average.
  • A higher share of basic/feature phones among the oldest cohort than in urban counties.
• Income and education: Median household income and bachelor’s attainment are lower than Michigan’s average. These correlate with:
  • Higher prevalence of prepaid plans and budget Android devices relative to iPhone share.
  • Greater reliance on cellular-only home internet, especially in exurban and rural townships where fixed broadband is limited or costly.
• Rurality and commute patterns: The county is predominantly rural with small towns (Greenville, Stanton, Lakeview, Howard City). Many residents commute toward Kent County/Grand Rapids for work, which:
  • Concentrates peak-hour mobile traffic along M-57, M-46, M-66, US-131-adjacent corridors, and around Greenville.
  • Produces noticeably different day vs. evening network load profiles than Michigan’s urban counties.

Digital infrastructure snapshot

• Mobile networks:
  • All three national carriers (AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile) provide countywide 4G LTE with expanding low-band 5G. Mid-band 5G (e.g., C-band/2.5 GHz) is strongest in and around Greenville and along main corridors; coverage thins in northern and eastern townships.
  • Practical implication: 5G “coverage maps” overstate user experience in the most rural areas; speeds often behave like good LTE outside town centers. This contrasts with Michigan’s metro counties, where mid-band 5G is now the norm.
• Fixed broadband interplay:
  • Cable/fiber: Spectrum offers cable broadband in Greenville and select nearby areas; localized fiber builds exist via regional providers. CASAIR (based near Greenville) operates fixed wireless and fiber in and around the county. Frontier provides legacy DSL in many rural areas.
  • Satellite/fixed wireless: Starlink and regional fixed-wireless options fill gaps where cable/fiber are absent. This raises the share of households using cellular or non-cable solutions compared with the state average.
• Coverage pain points:
  • Patchy signal and lower capacity are common in forested and lake-dense northern/eastern townships and on sparsely populated roads away from M-57/M-46. In-building coverage can be challenging in older farmhouses and metal buildings; residents frequently report using Wi‑Fi calling or signal boosters.
• Public/anchor connectivity:
  • Schools and libraries in Greenville, Stanton, Lakeview, Edmore, and Sheridan act as connectivity anchors; public Wi‑Fi sees heavier use than in urban counties due to household fixed-broadband gaps.

Usage patterns and adoption by group

• Youth and working-age adults (18–54): Near-saturation smartphone ownership; heavy use of messaging, social video, and navigation. Work-from-home or hybrid workers disproportionately rely on mobile hotspots where cable/fiber is unavailable.
• Older adults (55+): Growing adoption—especially for telehealth and family communications—but still below Michigan’s metro-county rates. Many use simpler Android devices; iPhone share rises with income and proximity to Greenville/Kent County.
• Mobile-only households: Higher than state average. Cellular data plans serve as primary home internet for a noticeable minority, reflecting both coverage and affordability constraints for fixed broadband.

What stands out versus Michigan overall

• Higher dependence on mobile networks for home internet and everyday connectivity than the state average.
• More low-band 5G and LTE usage, with fewer locations enjoying the sustained mid-band 5G speeds common in metro areas.
• Greater share of prepaid plans and budget Android devices; slightly lower iPhone share tied to income/age structure.
• Larger gaps between “map coverage” and real-world performance in fringe areas, making Wi‑Fi calling and boosters more common.
• Public and anchor-institution Wi‑Fi play a bigger role in bridging access than in urban counties.

Implications for stakeholders

• Carriers: Adding mid-band 5G sites or sectors near Greenville, Lakeview, Stanton, and along M-57/M-46 would materially improve typical speeds; targeted rural small cells or upgraded backhaul in known dead zones would reduce drop rates.
• Public sector and providers: Continued fiber expansion and subsidy targeting toward cellular-only and DSL-reliant households will disproportionately reduce the county’s digital divide versus state benchmarks.
• Businesses and service providers: Optimize for Android-heavy, prepaid user bases and plan for intermittent mid-band 5G; ensure apps work well on LTE and support offline/low-bandwidth modes.

Notes on figures

• User and household counts are derived by applying recent rural-Michigan smartphone and cellular-only adoption patterns (ACS S2801 and industry sources through 2023–2024) to Montcalm’s population and household base. Where local fixed broadband is sparse, cellular-only shares trend toward the upper end of the ranges provided.

Social media usage in Montcalm County, MI (2025 snapshot)

Baseline population and users

• Population: ~67,000; adults 18+: ~52,000; teens 13–17: ~4,500; gender split: ~51% female, ~49% male.
• Adults using at least one social platform: 72% of 18+ (37,000–38,000 users).
• Teens using at least one platform: >90% of 13–17 (~4,100–4,300 users).

Most-used platforms (adults, share of all 18+; approximate user counts)

• YouTube: 83% (~43,000)
• Facebook: 68% (~35,000)
• Instagram: 47% (~24,000)
• TikTok: 33% (~17,000)
• Snapchat: 27% (~14,000)

Teens (13–17) platform use (share of teens; approximate user counts)

• YouTube: 95% (4,300)
• TikTok: 67% (3,000)
• Instagram: 62% (2,800)
• Snapchat: 60% (2,700)
• Facebook: 33% (1,500)

Age-group patterns (who uses what most)

• 13–17: YouTube, TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram dominate; Facebook is secondary.
• 18–29: Heavy on YouTube, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok; Facebook present but not primary.
• 30–49: YouTube and Facebook lead; Instagram rising; TikTok used but less than under-30.
• 50–64: Facebook and YouTube dominate; Instagram/TikTok are minority use.
• 65+: Facebook first, then YouTube; others are niche.

Gender breakdown

• Overall users mirror population (~51% women, ~49% men).
• Platform skews: Facebook and Pinterest (female-leaning); YouTube, X (Twitter), Reddit (male-leaning); Instagram and TikTok near parity with a slight female tilt.

Behavioral trends observed locally

• Facebook is the community backbone: Groups, school and township updates, events, and Marketplace drive daily engagement.
• Video-first consumption is standard: YouTube for DIY, repairs, outdoor/recreation content; short-form video (Reels/TikTok) gains strong reach across 18–49.
• Teens and young adults favor ephemeral/messaging and short video (Snapchat, TikTok), with Instagram for highlights and sports/activities.
• Peak engagement windows: weekday evenings (roughly 6–9 pm) and weekend mornings; local event posts perform best within 24–48 hours of an event.
• Local discovery and shopping: Facebook/Instagram fuel awareness and foot traffic for restaurants, retail, services; live video and Stories outperform static posts.
• News and alerts: Residents commonly rely on Facebook Pages/Groups for hyperlocal news, closures, weather, and public safety updates.
• Device behavior: Mobile-first; vertical video and concise captions improve completion rates.

Notes on methodology

• Figures are modeled by applying recent U.S. platform adoption benchmarks (Pew Research, 2023–2024) to Montcalm County’s adult and teen population estimates (ACS/Census), yielding county-level estimates suitable for planning and benchmarking.