Hubbard County

Hubbard County, Minnesota — Key Demographics (U.S. Census Bureau)

Population size

• 21,344 (2020 Decennial Census)

Age

• Median age: about 49 years (ACS 2018–2022)
• Under 18: ~19%
• 65 and over: ~25%

Gender

• Male: ~50%
• Female: ~50% (ACS 2018–2022)

Race and ethnicity (ACS 2018–2022; Hispanic can be any race)

• White (non-Hispanic): ~89%
• American Indian/Alaska Native: ~3–4%
• Two or more races: ~3–5%
• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~2–3%
• Black or African American: ~1%
• Asian: ~0–1%

Households and families (ACS 2018–2022)

• Households: ~9,000+
• Persons per household: ~2.3
• Family households: ~58%
• Married-couple households: ~45–50%
• Nonfamily households: ~40%+
• Individuals living alone (65+): ~12–15%

Insights

• Small, aging, predominantly White rural county with a relatively high share of older adults and a large proportion of married-couple and nonfamily/seasonal households, consistent with lake-country seasonal housing patterns.

• Population and density: Hubbard County has about 22,000 residents and roughly 24 people per square mile, reflecting a sparsely populated, rural profile.
• Estimated email users: ~18,500 residents (about 83% of total population). Among adults, penetration is ~92–96%; among teens 13–17, ~80–90%.
• Age distribution of email use (penetration rates applied to a typical local age mix): 13–17: 1.3k users (85%); 18–34: ~4.4k (≈98%); 35–54: ~5.4k (≈96%); 55–64: ~3.1k (≈93%); 65+: ~4.3k (≈84%).
• Gender split: Email adoption is effectively even by gender; with the county’s near 50/50 sex distribution, email users are roughly half female and half male.
• Digital access trends:
  • About 84% of households maintain a broadband subscription (ACS-style measure), ~7% are smartphone-only, and ~9% have no home internet.
  • Fixed 100/20 Mbps service is available to most households, but coverage thins in the most rural townships; reliance on DSL, fixed wireless, and satellite increases outside Park Rapids and along lakes.
  • Mobile LTE/5G covers population centers and main corridors; terrain and tree cover create spotty pockets, influencing higher smartphone-only reliance.
• Insight: High overall email adoption is tempered by rural last-mile gaps; seniors and the most remote households are the main non-user clusters.

Mobile phone usage in Hubbard County, Minnesota — 2024 summary

Executive snapshot

• Population: ~22,300 residents; ~9,700 households
• Estimated mobile users (any mobile phone): ~18,200 people (82% of residents)
• Estimated smartphone users: ~16,400 people (74% of residents; ~88% of adults)
• Households with a smartphone: ~8,500 (about 88%)
• Households with a cellular data plan: ~7,900 (about 81%)
• Cellular-only internet households (no wireline/fiber): ~13% (higher than statewide)

How Hubbard County differs from Minnesota overall

• Lower smartphone penetration: County adult smartphone adoption trails Minnesota by 1–3 percentage points, driven by an older age profile and more rural living.
• More cellular-only households: Reliance on mobile broadband in lieu of wireline is several points higher than the state average because of sparser fiber/DSL coverage in outlying townships.
• Slower 5G mid-band rollout: Mid-band 5G population coverage lags the state, with capacity concentrated in and around Park Rapids and along US-71/34 corridors; low-band 5G and LTE remain the primary fallback elsewhere.
• Larger seasonal swings: Summer tourism and lake traffic create pronounced peak loads compared with statewide norms, increasing the gap between peak and off-peak mobile performance.

User estimates and adoption profile

• Total mobile phone users: ~18,200
• Smartphone users: ~16,400
• Feature/flip-phone users: ~1,800 (about 8% of mobile users; higher than statewide)
• Mobile-only adults (no landline): ~88% of adults; landline retention is higher among 65+, but overall mobile-only is now the norm.

Age-based adoption (share with a smartphone; county-level estimates)

• Ages 18–34: ~96%
• Ages 35–64: ~90%
• Ages 65+: 72% (Minnesota overall is several points higher in this group) The county’s larger 65+ share (27% of residents vs a lower statewide share) pulls down the aggregate adoption rate relative to Minnesota.

Household and income patterns

• Households with smartphones: ~88% (statewide slightly higher)
• Cellular-only internet households: ~13% (vs roughly single-digit percentages statewide)
• Lower-income and remote households are more likely to be cellular-only, reflecting limited wired options and the end of the Affordable Connectivity Program in 2024.

Digital infrastructure and performance

• Coverage
  • 4G LTE: Near-universal outdoor coverage along primary roads and in population centers; indoor reliability declines in heavily wooded and lake-dense areas.
  • 5G low-band: Broad geographic reach along highways and in towns; useful for coverage but not high capacity.
  • 5G mid-band (capacity): Focused in Park Rapids and main corridors; patchy in outlying townships, trailing Minnesota’s metro-led buildout.
• Typical speeds (experienced)
  • LTE: ~20–60 Mbps down in towns/along highways; lower at lake edges and forested lowlands.
  • 5G low-band: ~30–100 Mbps down; uplink similar to LTE.
  • 5G mid-band (in coverage): ~200–350 Mbps down with strong indoor performance in town centers.
• Fiber and fixed broadband
  • Fiber is present in and near towns and some platted lake developments (notably from regional providers such as Paul Bunyan Communications and Arvig), but coverage is discontinuous in rural townships.
  • DSL/coax footprints remain in legacy pockets; many remote homes fall back to fixed wireless or satellite.
• Fixed wireless and satellite
  • Strong adoption of LTE/5G fixed wireless and satellite (including Starlink) to fill wireline gaps; this increases mobile network load and raises the share of cellular-only households.

Behavioral and seasonal dynamics

• Peak-season congestion: Summer weekends and holidays produce noticeable slowdowns on lake corridors and around Itasca State Park, with speeds dropping to LTE-like levels even on 5G.
• Wi‑Fi offload: High reliance on home and resort Wi‑Fi among visitors and residents; off-peak months see improved mobile performance countywide.

Implications

• Customer experience in Hubbard County is shaped more by coverage and seasonal capacity than by device adoption per se, unlike Minnesota’s metro counties where device adoption and mid-band 5G are the primary differentiators.
• Expanding mid-band 5G and rural fiber laterals would narrow the performance and adoption gap with statewide averages, particularly for older residents and cellular-only households.

Notes on figures

• Population, household, and device metrics are 2024 modeled estimates synthesized from recent ACS county profiles, statewide digital adoption studies, and rural-versus-urban differentials. State-level comparisons reference Minnesota’s more urbanized and younger demographic profile.

Hubbard County, MN social media snapshot (2025)

Scope

• Based on the county’s age structure (U.S. Census, 2020) and 2024 U.S. platform adoption benchmarks (Pew Research), adjusted for rural/older demographics. Figures are modeled estimates for residents age 13+.

User stats

• Population: 21,344 (2020 Census). Residents 13+: ~18,800
• Social media users (any platform, 13+): 74% (13,900 people)
• Gender among social media users: ~53% women, ~47% men
• Age mix of social users:
  • 13–17: ~9%
  • 18–29: ~17%
  • 30–49: ~32%
  • 50–64: ~24%
  • 65+: ~18%
• Median age is high for the U.S. (~49), which depresses adoption of Instagram/TikTok/Snapchat relative to national averages and boosts Facebook reliance

Most-used platforms (share of residents 13+ who use each)

• YouTube: ~82%
• Facebook: ~64%
• Instagram: ~42%
• TikTok: ~33%
• Pinterest: ~31%
• Snapchat: ~24%
• X (Twitter): ~20% Notes:
• Facebook use skews older; Instagram/TikTok skew younger; Pinterest heavily female; X and Reddit skew male. Nextdoor presence is spotty in rural townships; most “neighborhood” interaction occurs in Facebook Groups.

Age-group highlights

• Teens (13–17): Very high YouTube, Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok use; light Facebook
• 18–29: Heaviest daily use across Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat; high YouTube; moderate Facebook
• 30–49: Broadest multi-platform use; Facebook and YouTube dominate; Instagram moderate; TikTok rising
• 50–64: Strong Facebook and YouTube; Instagram moderate; limited TikTok/Snapchat
• 65+: Facebook and YouTube lead; minimal Instagram/TikTok/Snapchat

Gender breakdown by behavior

• Women are slightly more likely than men to use social overall and over-index on Facebook and Pinterest (content around family, events, local services, recipes, décor)
• Men over-index on YouTube and X/Reddit (news, sports, DIY, gear reviews)

Behavioral trends and local patterns

• Facebook as the community backbone: High engagement with local Groups/Pages for school updates, road conditions, weather/safety, garage sales, buy-sell-trade, lake associations, churches, and youth sports
• Seasonal spikes: Summer tourism and cabin traffic (Itasca State Park/lake country) lift engagement for events, dining, lodging, fishing reports, guides, and outdoor rentals; winter spikes around storms and school closures
• Video-first consumption: Short vertical video (Reels/TikTok) is rising under age 50; YouTube is the default for DIY, home/auto repair, outdoor gear, and how-tos across all ages
• Local trust premium: Posts from known local organizations, schools, and individuals outperform national syndicated content; “faces and places” imagery drives comments/shares
• Utility-driven engagement: Event notices, limited-time offers, menu updates, job postings, and closures/alerts outperform generic branding
• Messaging and immediacy: Facebook Messenger and Instagram DMs are used for quick questions, appointment setting, curbside pickup, and customer service
• Time-of-day patterns: Evenings and weekends draw the highest interaction; morning check-ins are common for news, weather, and school/roads

Method notes

• Platform percentages are modeled from Pew Research Center’s 2024 U.S. platform use by age, applied to Hubbard County’s older-skewing age mix; overall social-user share reflects teen/adult adoption patterns in rural counties.