Sanilac County

Sanilac County, Michigan — Key demographics (most recent U.S. Census Bureau data)

Population size

• Total population: 40,611 (2020 Census)

Age

• Median age: ~45 years (ACS 2019–2023)
• Under 18: ~22%
• 18 to 64: ~56%
• 65 and over: ~22%

Gender

• Female: ~50%
• Male: ~50%

Racial and ethnic composition (ACS 2019–2023)

• White alone: ~94%
• Black or African American alone: ~1%
• American Indian and Alaska Native alone: ~1%
• Asian alone: <1%
• Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander: ~0%
• Two or more races: ~4%
• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~3–4% Note: Hispanic/Latino is an ethnicity and overlaps with race categories.

Households (ACS 2019–2023)

• Total households: ~16,700
• Average household size: ~2.4
• Family households: ~66% of households
• Married-couple households: ~52% of households
• Households with children under 18: ~27%
• Nonfamily households: ~34% (including ~28% living alone)
• Owner-occupied housing rate: ~83%
• Average family size: ~3.0

Insights

• Stable-to-declining rural population with an older age profile
• Predominantly White, small but present Hispanic community
• High homeownership and smaller household sizes consistent with rural Michigan norms

Sanilac County, Michigan (population ~40,200; rural density ≈42 people per sq mi) shows high but age-skewed email adoption.

Estimated email users: ~29,000 adults (≈72% of total population; ≈90% of internet-using adults). Method: Census population/age mix with Pew email adoption by age.

Age distribution of adult email users (approx.):

• 18–29: ~13% of users
• 30–49: ~32% of users
• 50–64: ~30% of users
• 65+: ~25% of users Email adoption is near‑universal among adults under 65 and modestly lower among 65+.

Gender split among email users: roughly even, 51% women (14.8k) and 49% men (14.2k), mirroring the county’s demographics.

Digital access and trends:

• About 80–83% of households have a broadband subscription; roughly 15–18% lack any home internet, with a nontrivial smartphone‑only segment. This trails Michigan’s statewide broadband adoption (upper‑80s%).
• Access is strongest in and around Sandusky, Marlette, Croswell, and Lexington, with sparser wired options across agricultural areas; fixed‑wireless and recent fiber builds are narrowing gaps.
• These connectivity patterns support heavy email reliance among working‑age residents and mobile access among some lower‑income and older households, keeping overall email usage high despite rural infrastructure constraints.

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

Scope and baselines

• Population and households: ~40,000 residents and ~16,700 households (2023). Rural county in Michigan’s Thumb with small population centers (Sandusky, Marlette, Croswell, Lexington, Brown City) and large agricultural areas.

User estimates

• Adults using any mobile phone: ~28,500–29,000 adults (about 90% of the ~31,500–32,000 adults).
• Adult smartphone users: ~26,000 (roughly 80–83% of adults; several points below Michigan’s ~88–90%).
• Households with a cellular data plan (smartphone/tablet/other mobile device): about 11,500 (≈68–70% of households; Michigan ≈79–81%).
• Smartphone-reliant households (smartphone with no other home computing device or no wired broadband): ≈1,200–1,400 (≈7–9% of households; a bit higher than Michigan’s ≈5–7%).
• Households with no internet subscription: ≈2,600–2,800 (≈15–17% of households; above Michigan’s ≈9–11%).
• Households with broadband of any type: ≈13,000 (≈77–80%; below Michigan’s ≈85–88%). Notes: Percentages align with U.S. Census ACS 2018–2022 five-year “Computer and Internet Use” patterns for rural Michigan counties and the state; county figures are rounded to reflect ACS margins of error at small geographies.

Demographic breakdown and usage patterns

• Age: Sanilac has an older age profile (≈23% age 65+ vs Michigan ≈18%). Smartphone adoption and cellular-only reliance both show stronger age effects here: seniors are less likely to own smartphones or use mobile data plans, inflating the “no internet” share relative to the state.
• Income: Median household income is lower than the state average. Lower-income households are overrepresented among smartphone-only internet users and prepaid/MVNO mobile plans, reflecting cost sensitivity.
• Rurality: A larger rural share than Michigan overall means more residents live outside strong 5G footprints and often rely on LTE or fixed wireless. This rural-urban gap in mobile experience (coverage consistency, indoor signal, speeds) is wider than at the state level.
• Education and work: A higher share of blue-collar and agricultural employment aligns with heavier daytime mobile use along corridors and in fields (LTE hotspots, PTT/VoIP over LTE) and less dependence on in-home wired broadband than in metro Michigan.

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• Networks present: National carriers (Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile) operate countywide; Thumb Cellular (regional provider) also serves the Thumb and fills rural coverage gaps. FirstNet (AT&T’s Band 14) coverage is present on main corridors for public safety.
• 5G status: 5G low-band coverage is available around larger towns and along key routes (M-53, M-46, M-25), but mid-band 5G capacity is still patchy outside population centers. Compared with state averages, Sanilac residents spend more time on LTE and experience more transitions between bands/cells.
• Tower siting and backhaul: Macro sites are spaced farther apart than in metro areas; coverage is generally adequate outdoors but can be inconsistent indoors in dispersed townships. Backhaul relies on a mix of fiber and microwave; anchor-institution fiber (e.g., Merit Network) is present along primary corridors, with last-mile deficits persisting off-corridor.
• Home internet via mobile: Take-up of fixed wireless (T-Mobile/Verizon 5G Home where available) and LTE-based home internet is meaningfully higher than in urban Michigan due to limited cable/fiber footprints. Starlink and other satellite options are visible in the market but remain a minority solution.
• Public access: Libraries, schools, and municipal offices play an outsized role as Wi‑Fi and device-access points relative to the state, mitigating connectivity gaps for students and seniors.

How Sanilac County differs from Michigan overall

• Lower adoption: Household broadband and mobile data-plan penetration are 7–12 percentage points below the state.
• More smartphone-only and more unconnected: Smartphone-only reliance is modestly higher, and the share of households with no internet subscription is 4–7 points higher than the state.
• Older, more rural user base: A larger senior and rural share depresses smartphone adoption and increases LTE dependence.
• Slower 5G rollout off-corridor: Low-band 5G is present, but mid-band capacity is sparser outside towns; residents more often fall back to LTE than typical in Michigan metros.
• Greater role for regional carrier and fixed wireless: Thumb Cellular helps fill rural gaps; fixed wireless and mobile-home internet make up a larger slice of household connectivity than statewide.

Key takeaways

• Expect roughly 26,000 adult smartphone users and close to 29,000 adult mobile users in the county, with usage concentrated along main corridors and in towns.
• Mobile connectivity is good on primary routes and in population centers, but rural interior areas see more LTE fallback, weaker indoor signal, and variable speeds compared to statewide norms.
• The combination of older demographics, lower incomes, and sparse last‑mile infrastructure yields higher smartphone-only and unconnected household rates than Michigan as a whole, keeping mobile networks central to everyday connectivity in Sanilac.

Sources and reference basis: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2018–2022 five-year “Computer and Internet Use” patterns for counties vs. Michigan; FCC Broadband Data Collection coverage patterns (2024) and carrier-published coverage for Verizon, AT&T/FirstNet, T-Mobile, plus regional provider Thumb Cellular. Population/household counts from 2023 Census estimates. All figures rounded to reflect ACS county-level margins of error.

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

How the figures were derived

• County-level platform-by-platform datasets are not directly published. The percentages below are modeled local estimates based on Pew Research Center’s 2024 U.S. social media adoption rates, adjusted for Sanilac County’s older, largely rural age profile from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS). They reliably reflect relative platform popularity and age/gender skews locally.

Overall adoption

• Adults using at least one social platform: ~72% (Pew 2024 benchmark, applied locally)
• YouTube usage among adults: ~83% (Pew 2024)
• Social use skews older toward Facebook/YouTube; younger cohorts add Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok

Most-used platforms (share of adults who use the platform; modeled for Sanilac)

• YouTube: ~83%
• Facebook: ~68%
• Instagram: ~45–50% (closer to the lower end locally due to older age mix)
• Pinterest: ~30–35% (female-skewed; strong in 25–54)
• TikTok: ~25–33% (lower locally among 50+)
• Also notable: Snapchat ~25–30% (concentrated under 30); LinkedIn ~20–30% (professionals/healthcare/education); WhatsApp ~20–25% (family/close contacts); X (Twitter) ~20–22%; Reddit ~15–22%

User composition (modeled for Sanilac)

• By age (share within each age group who use at least one platform)
  • 18–29: ~90%+
  • 30–49: ~85–90%
  • 50–64: ~70–75%
  • 65+: ~50–55%
• Platform-by-age highlights
  • 18–29: YouTube ~95%; Instagram ~75–80%; Snapchat ~60–65%; TikTok ~60%+; Facebook ~45–50%
  • 30–49: YouTube ~90%+; Facebook ~70–75%; Instagram ~45–50%; TikTok ~30%; Snapchat ~25–30%
  • 50–64: Facebook ~70%+; YouTube ~65–70%; Pinterest ~25–35%; Instagram ~20–25%; TikTok ~15–20%
  • 65+: Facebook ~60%+; YouTube ~45–50%; Instagram ~10–20%
• Gender breakdown among social media users
  • Overall users: modest female majority (~52–54% female, ~46–48% male, reflecting county demographics)
  • Platform skews: Pinterest heavily female (~70%+); Facebook slightly female; Instagram slightly female; YouTube, Reddit, and X skew male

Behavioral trends in Sanilac County

• Facebook is the community hub
  • Heavy use of Groups for buy/sell/trade, school updates, high school sports, church and civic announcements, road closures, storm impacts
  • Facebook Marketplace is a primary local commerce channel; event promotion (fairs, festivals, yard/estate sales) performs well
• YouTube is the how-to and entertainment backbone
  • Strong consumption of DIY, small-engine repair, home improvement, hunting/fishing, farm and equipment content; cord-cutting and local sports highlights
• Instagram and Reels are business-friendly but younger-skewed
  • Boutiques, salons, restaurants, and tourism in places like Lexington/Port Sanilac lean on Stories/Reels; discovery via location tags and hashtags
• TikTok is youth-driven and creator-light
  • Teens/20s use for entertainment and trends; content is more consumption than local creation outside school events and seasonal tourism
• Snapchat dominates teen messaging; Snap Map use clusters around schools, sports venues, and town centers (Sandusky, Croswell, Marlette)
• X (Twitter) and Reddit are niche
  • X for real-time weather, outages, and sports scores; Reddit more for state/region subs (e.g., r/michigan) than hyperlocal
• Pinterest is strong for home, crafts, recipes, and seasonal projects among women 25–54
• Timing and cadence
  • Peak engagement evenings (7–10 pm) and weekends; winter months see sustained indoor usage; spikes during severe weather, school closures, county fair season, and hunting/fishing openers
• Privacy and messaging
  • Higher reliance on private channels (Messenger, Snapchat, WhatsApp) for coordination; public posting rates lower than metro areas
• Local advertising implications
  • Meta (Facebook/Instagram) delivers the broadest reach; short video (Reels) and Marketplace listings drive action; geotargeting around Sandusky, Croswell, Marlette, Lexington/Brown City/Deckerville captures most activity corridors

Sources

• Pew Research Center, Social Media Use in 2024 (platform adoption by U.S. adults, age, and gender skews)
• U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates for Sanilac County (age structure and rural profile informing the local adjustment)