Schoolcraft County

Schoolcraft County, Michigan — key demographics

Population size

• 8,0xx (2023 estimate); 8,047 (2020 Census)

Age

• Median age: ~52
• Under 18: ~18%
• 18–64: ~56%
• 65 and over: ~26%

Gender

• Female: ~49%
• Male: ~51%

Race/ethnicity (percent of population)

• White (non-Hispanic): ~86–88%
• American Indian/Alaska Native: ~7–9%
• Two or more races: ~3–5%
• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~1–2%
• Black: <1%
• Asian: <1%

Households

• ~3,6xx households
• Average household size: ~2.2
• Family households: ~56–60% of households
• Married‑couple families: ~45–50% of households
• Households with children under 18: ~20–25%
• Nonfamily households: ~40–44%

Insights

• Small, aging population with a high median age and a sizable 65+ share
• Predominantly non-Hispanic White with a notable American Indian presence
• Small household sizes; family and married‑couple households are the majority but with many nonfamily households

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (2020 Decennial Census; 2019–2023 American Community Survey 5‑year estimates; Population Estimates Program, Vintage 2023).

• Scope: Schoolcraft County, MI population 8,047 (2020); ≈3,600 households.
• Estimated email users: ≈5,500 residents (≈72% of total), derived from local internet adoption and near‑universal email use among internet users.
• Age distribution of email users (approximate share of all users): under 18 ≈8%; 18–34 ≈20%; 35–64 ≈48%; 65+ ≈24%. Usage rates by age: under 18 ≈75–80%; 18–34 ≈96–98%; 35–64 ≈92–95%; 65+ ≈80–85%.
• Gender split among email users: roughly even, ≈49% men, ≈51% women.
• Digital access:
  • Households with a computer: ≈87–89%.
  • Home broadband subscription: ≈76–78% of households (ACS 2018–2022).
  • Smartphone‑only internet households: ≈9–11%.
  • No home internet: ≈20–22%.
• Trends: Gradual gains in broadband subscriptions and speeds since 2019, driven by incremental fiber builds in/around Manistique and expanded fixed‑wireless coverage; affordability and sparse settlement remain adoption constraints.
• Local density/connectivity context: Very low population density (~7 people per square mile over ~1,170 sq mi of land) and large forested areas increase last‑mile costs; service is strongest in Manistique and along the US‑2 corridor, with more reliance on fixed wireless or satellite in outlying areas.

Mobile phone usage in Schoolcraft County, Michigan (2025 snapshot)

Key takeaways that differ from Michigan overall

• Fewer smartphone users as a share of adults and more cellular-only households than the state average, driven by an older population and patchy mid-band 5G coverage.
• Coverage and capacity are tightly clustered along US-2 and M-28; interior areas of the Hiawatha National Forest see much weaker service and more single-carrier coverage.
• Seasonal tourism materially stresses capacity on highway corridors and lakeshore communities, creating stronger weekend/peak-season variability than seen statewide.

User estimates

• Adult smartphone users: approximately 5,400–5,800 residents (roughly 83–87% of adults). Michigan overall is closer to ~90%.
• Households relying on cellular data as their primary or only internet: about 14–18% of households in the county, versus roughly 8–10% statewide.
• Households with any cellular data subscription (alongside or instead of fixed broadband): majority of households; penetration is high in town centers and lower in forested interior tracts.
• Device mix and upgrade cycle: older average device age than the state, with slower turnover to 5G-capable models, reflecting income and age structure.

Demographic breakdown (modeled from ACS 2019–2023 5-year demographics and Pew’s 2023 adoption differentials)

• By age
  • 18–34: 93–97% smartphone adoption.
  • 35–64: 88–92%.
  • 65+: 70–78% (well below Michigan’s ~76–82% for this group), pulling down the countywide average because the county skews older.
• By income
  • <$30k household income: 75–82% adoption; higher reliance on prepaid plans and cellular-only home internet.
  • $30k–$75k: 85–90%.

  • $75k: 93–97%, with higher 5G handset share.

• By geography within the county
  • Town centers and highway corridors (Manistique/Thompson along US-2; Seney along M-28): highest adoption and data use, better indoor coverage, and more multi-carrier overlap.
  • Interior/forest and lakeshore stretches away from towns: lower effective adoption (more basic/older devices and voice/text-first usage) due to coverage and capacity constraints.

Digital infrastructure and coverage patterns

• Network footprint
  • Coverage is strongest along US-2 (Manistique, Thompson Township, Gulliver corridor) and M-28 (Seney). These areas generally have overlapping 4G LTE from multiple national carriers and low-band 5G in town centers.
  • Interior Hiawatha National Forest tracts have larger dead zones, more single-carrier pockets, and greater dependence on low-band LTE; mid-band 5G is limited outside Manistique and immediate surroundings.
• Capacity
  • Limited mid-band 5G spectrum deployment constrains peak speeds outside the main corridors; users more often encounter low-band 5G/LTE with rural sector loading. This produces lower median downlink performance than Michigan’s metro corridors and more variability during summer tourism peaks.
• Sites and backhaul
  • The county has a sparse macro-site grid typical of Upper Peninsula forest counties (dozens of macro sites rather than hundreds). Small cells are rare outside a few downtown blocks.
  • Fiber backhaul follows US-2/M-28 and connects public anchors; local incumbents (e.g., Manistique Telephone/Hiawatha Communications) and regional networks furnish the transport that mobile operators tap on primary corridors. Backhaul scarcity off-corridor limits radio upgrades and densification.
• Service quality nuances
  • Indoor coverage can be inconsistent in metal/energy-efficient buildings; Wi‑Fi calling is commonly used.
  • Public-safety/FirstNet improvements have focused on highway and community coverage rather than deep interior forest areas.

How Schoolcraft differs from the state-level trend

• Adoption: 3–7 percentage points lower adult smartphone adoption than Michigan overall, with a larger 65+ population share amplifying the gap.
• Access mode: materially higher share of cellular-only or cellular-first households than the state, reflecting both preference and necessity where fixed options are limited.
• Network quality: less mid-band 5G and sparser site density than metro Michigan; performance is more corridor-dependent and more seasonal.
• Market behavior: greater sensitivity to device cost and plan pricing; slower upgrade cycles; stronger reliance on low-band coverage carriers.

Notes on method

• Estimates synthesize county demographics from ACS 2019–2023 5‑year data with Pew Research Center’s 2023 smartphone adoption by age/income and rural/urban differentials, and Upper Peninsula coverage patterns from FCC mobile coverage reporting and operator deployment norms. Figures are presented as conservative ranges to reflect small-county variability while giving definitive, decision-ready bounds.

Schoolcraft County, MI social media snapshot (2025)

Baseline

• Population: 8,047 (U.S. Census, 2020). Rural, older-skewing age profile versus Michigan overall.
• Method: County-level usage is not directly measured. Figures below are modeled local estimates by applying the latest Pew Research Center platform-adoption rates (2024) to a rural, older population mix consistent with Schoolcraft County. Use ranges to reflect uncertainty.

Overall usage

• Estimated social media penetration (residents 13+): 70–77%
• Estimated active users (residents 13+): ~5,200–5,900 people
• Typical multi-platform behavior: 2–4 platforms per user; YouTube + Facebook is the dominant pairing

Most-used platforms (adult reach, estimated)

• YouTube: 75–82%
• Facebook: 60–68%
• Instagram: 25–35%
• TikTok: 20–30%
• Snapchat: 15–25%
• X (Twitter): 15–20%
• Pinterest: 20–30% (skews female)
• LinkedIn: 10–15% (concentrated among working-age professionals)
• Reddit: 8–12%

Age-group patterns (share using each platform within age group, estimated)

• Teens (13–17): Snapchat 60–70%, TikTok 60–70%, YouTube 90%+, Instagram 60–70%, Facebook ≤30%
• Young adults (18–29): YouTube ~90%+, Instagram 70–80%, Snapchat 60–70%, TikTok 55–65%, Facebook ~60–65%, X 25–35%, Reddit 25–35%
• Adults (30–49): YouTube ~90%, Facebook 70–75%, Instagram 45–55%, TikTok 35–45%, Snapchat 20–30%, X 20–30%
• Older adults (50–64): YouTube 75–85%, Facebook 65–70%, Instagram 25–35%, TikTok 20–30%, X 12–20%
• Seniors (65+): YouTube 55–65%, Facebook 55–60%, Instagram 10–20%, TikTok 8–15%, X 5–10%

Gender breakdown (directional)

• Women: More likely to use Facebook, Instagram, and Pinterest; higher engagement in local groups, events, schools, health topics
• Men: More likely to use YouTube, Reddit, and X; higher engagement with outdoor, sports, autos, and news commentary
• Net effect locally: Facebook and Pinterest skew female; YouTube and Reddit skew male; Instagram modest female tilt; TikTok relatively balanced among under-35

Behavioral trends (local/rural patterns)

• Community-first usage: High reliance on Facebook Groups and Pages for local news, school athletics, township and county updates, events, classifieds, and weather/road conditions
• Video-forward: YouTube and Facebook video drive discovery; short-form (Reels/TikTok) growth among under-40; live-streams used for games, meetings, and events
• Messaging layer: Facebook Messenger is the default for local contact; Snapchat dominates teen/young adult messaging
• Time-of-day peaks: Early morning (6–8 a.m.) and evening (7–10 p.m.) for Facebook/YouTube; after-school to late evening for Snapchat/TikTok/Instagram
• Access patterns: Higher share of mobile-only usage than state average; content optimized for low-friction, short videos and image posts performs best
• Content themes that over-index: Local government and school updates, outdoors (hunting, fishing, trails), emergency alerts, weather, small-business promotions, church/community fundraisers, youth sports highlights

Notes and sources

• Population: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial (Schoolcraft County = 8,047)
• Platform adoption benchmarks: Pew Research Center, Social Media Use in 2024 (applied to a rural/older mix to localize)
• Figures are modeled local estimates; expect modest variance in either direction based on seasonal population flow and broadband/mobile coverage patterns in the Upper Peninsula.