Madison County

Madison County, Nebraska — key demographics

Population size

• Total population: 35,585 (2020 Census)
• 2023 estimate: approximately mid-35,000s (ACS 2019–2023 5-year indicates stability around the 35–36k range)

Age

• Median age: about 36 years (ACS 2019–2023)
• Under 18: ~25%
• 18 to 64: ~60%
• 65 and over: ~15–16%

Gender

• Male: ~50–51%
• Female: ~49–50% (ACS 2019–2023)

Racial and ethnic composition (ACS 2019–2023)

• White alone: ~84–85%
• Black or African American alone: ~2%
• American Indian and Alaska Native alone: ~1–2%
• Asian alone: ~1%
• Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone: ~0–0.2%
• Some other race alone: ~6%
• Two or more races: ~4–5%
• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~20–22%
• White alone, not Hispanic or Latino: ~70–72% Note: Hispanic/Latino is an ethnicity; individuals can be of any race.

Households (ACS 2019–2023)

• Total households: ~13,800
• Average household size: ~2.5–2.6
• Family households: ~64% of households
• Married-couple households: ~48% of households
• Households with children under 18: ~30%
• Nonfamily households: ~36% (one-person households ~30%)
• Owner-occupied housing unit rate: ~60–63%

Key takeaways

• Stable population around 35–36k with a relatively young median age (~36).
• Slight male lean.
• Significant Hispanic/Latino community (~1 in 5 residents).
• Majority family households; average household size roughly 2.5–2.6; homeownership near three-fifths.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census (DP1) and American Community Survey 2019–2023 5-year estimates (tables DP05, S0101, S1101) via data.census.gov.

Madison County, NE (pop ≈35,300; density ≈61/sq mi) has an estimated ≈26,000 email users (residents age 13+).

Age mix of email users:

• 13–17: ~9% (≈2.3k)
• 18–29: ~19% (≈5.0k)
• 30–49: ~34% (≈8.8k)
• 50–64: ~23% (≈6.0k)
• 65+: ~15% (≈3.9k)

Gender split: approximately even (≈50% female, ≈50% male).

Digital access and connectivity:

• Household broadband subscription is high (≈85–90%); smartphone‑only internet access affects about 10–12% of households.
• Fiber and cable broadband serve population centers (especially Norfolk), while rural areas rely more on fixed wireless/DSL; 100/20 Mbps service is common in and around Norfolk, with slower options more prevalent in low‑density townships.
• About 70% of residents live in or near Norfolk, concentrating demand and improving network economics; sparsity outside the city raises deployment costs and contributes to the remaining access gap.

Overall, email usage is widespread across all adult age groups, with slightly lower adoption among seniors, and access is shaped by strong urban connectivity in Norfolk contrasted with rural last‑mile limitations.

Summary of mobile phone usage in Madison County, Nebraska

Scope and sources

• Metrics reflect the best-available, county-level indicators of mobile adoption and reliance from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2019–2023 5-year estimates (Types of Computers and Internet Subscriptions), supported by FCC mobile coverage/broadband availability data (2024 map updates) and state comparative figures for Nebraska over the same period. “Mobile usage” is summarized via smartphone ownership, presence of a household cellular data plan, and cellular-only internet reliance, plus infrastructure conditions relevant to mobile performance.

User estimates

• Smartphone households: Approximately 9 in 10 Madison County households report having a smartphone, modestly below the Nebraska average (statewide is typically in the low-to-mid 90s). That places the county a couple of percentage points under the state on this adoption measure.
• Households with a cellular data plan (at home): Roughly three-quarters of households report a cellular data plan (at home), again slightly below the statewide figure. This aligns with the county’s more rural profile outside Norfolk.
• Cellular-only internet households (mobile is the only home internet): Madison County’s rate is higher than the Nebraska average—indicative of greater dependence on mobile data where fixed broadband is less available or less affordable. The county trend line shows cellular-only reliance persisting rather than declining, unlike the state average, which has edged down as fiber and cable expand in metro areas.
• Adult smartphone users (modeled, county-scale): Given population size and age structure, Madison County’s adult smartphone user base is in the mid‑20,000s. Adoption among working-age adults is near universal; adoption among seniors is materially lower but rising year over year.

Demographic breakdown

• Age:
  • 18–34: Near-universal smartphone adoption and frequent mobile-first behavior (cellular data used as primary connection).
  • 35–64: High adoption; mix of wireline-plus-mobile subscriptions.
  • 65+: Adoption lags the state average by a few points; a notable subset relies on lower-cost mobile plans rather than fixed broadband.
• Income: Lower-income households show higher mobile-only reliance than the state average, reflecting cost and availability differentials; middle- and higher-income households more often maintain both wireline and mobile service.
• Race/ethnicity: Madison County’s larger Hispanic/Latino community (relative to the state share) correlates with above-average mobile-first usage, echoing national patterns where mobile is a cost-effective primary connection.
• Urban vs rural within the county: Norfolk exhibits higher 5G availability and faster median speeds than outlying areas; rural tracts have more cellular-only households and more variable performance.

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• 4G LTE: Countywide baseline LTE coverage from national carriers is broad, with signal quality dropping in some low-density and fringe areas.
• 5G: Mid-band 5G is present in and around Norfolk (notably stronger along primary corridors); coverage thins with distance from the city. Madison County’s 5G footprint and capacity trail Nebraska’s large metros (Omaha–Lincoln), producing a larger urban–rural performance gap than the state average.
• Fixed broadband interplay: Fiber and high-capacity cable are less pervasive countywide than in Nebraska’s metro counties. Where fiber/cable options are limited, households substitute with mobile data—this sustains a higher cellular-only rate than the state overall.
• Spectrum and carriers: All three national carriers operate in the county; mid-band 5G spectrum utilization (which drives real-world performance) is less dense than in metro Nebraska. This constrains peak and median speeds outside Norfolk relative to statewide medians.
• Affordability programs: Participation in ACP/Lifeline (where available) has supported mobile-first connectivity among lower-income households; the county’s reliance on these programs has been slightly higher than the state average on a per‑capita basis. The ACP funding uncertainty increases the risk of a near-term uptick in connectivity churn and mobile-only households.

How Madison County differs from Nebraska overall

• Slightly lower smartphone and household cellular-plan adoption than the statewide average, but a higher share of cellular-only internet households.
• Larger within-county disparity: Norfolk enjoys notably better 5G availability and speeds; rural tracts experience more variable coverage and signal quality, leading to stronger mobile reliance but lower performance—this gap is wider than the state’s metro counties.
• Demographics amplify mobile-first behavior: A relatively larger share of lower-income and Hispanic/Latino households contributes to higher mobile-only use compared with Nebraska overall.
• Infrastructure lag: Fewer fiber passings and less mid-band 5G density than state metro areas keep mobile performance and redundancy below statewide urban benchmarks, reinforcing mobile dependence where fixed options are limited.

Key takeaways

• Mobile is indispensable in Madison County and substitutes for wireline for a meaningfully larger slice of households than at the state level.
• Expanding mid-band 5G outside Norfolk and accelerating fiber/cable buildouts are the most direct levers to reduce cellular-only reliance and close the county’s performance gap with Nebraska’s metro areas.
• Targeted affordability and device programs would have outsized impact locally because cost-sensitivity and mobile-first patterns are more prevalent than the statewide average.

Madison County, NE — Social media snapshot (2025)

Headline user stats

• Population: ~36,000; adults (18+): ~27,000
• Adult social media users: ~19,000–20,000 (roughly 70–75% of adults, in line with Pew Research for U.S. adults and rural areas)
• Daily social media use: Most Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram and TikTok users check daily; YouTube use is frequent but more task-driven

Most-used platforms (share of adults; estimated local adult reach in Madison County)

• YouTube: 83% of adults (~22,000)
• Facebook: 68% (~18,000)
• Instagram: 47% (~13,000)
• Pinterest: 35% (~9,000)
• LinkedIn: 30% (~8,000)
• TikTok: 33% (~9,000)
• Snapchat: 27% (~7,000)
• X (Twitter): 22% (6,000)
• WhatsApp: 21% (6,000) Notes: Shares reflect U.S. adult usage (Pew Research Center, 2024); local counts are proportional estimates. Platform audiences overlap.

Age groups (usage patterns)

• 18–29: Near-universal YouTube; heavy Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok; Facebook secondary. Highest multi-platform use and short-form video creation.
• 30–49: Broadest mix; Facebook and YouTube are staples; Instagram solid; TikTok rising; Snapchat used by parents with teens.
• 50–64: Facebook and YouTube dominate; Instagram moderate; TikTok/Pinterest growing for entertainment, recipes, DIY.
• 65+: Facebook leads for family/community updates; YouTube used for how‑to, news; lower but rising adoption of Instagram/TikTok.

Gender breakdown

• Overall participation is close to even. Typical skews seen locally mirror national patterns:
  • Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest: slight female majority
  • YouTube: broadly balanced
  • LinkedIn, X, Reddit: slight male tilt
• Women over-index in local community groups, school/activities, and Marketplace; men over-index in sports, outdoors, ag/mechanic content on YouTube and Facebook.

Behavioral trends observed in similar rural Midwest counties (consistent with Madison County’s profile)

• Facebook as the community hub: Local news, school/sports updates, church and civic groups, events, buy/sell (Marketplace), and job postings.
• Video-first consumption: YouTube for tutorials, product research, and outdoor/ag content; TikTok/Instagram Reels for entertainment and local small-business promotion.
• Messaging over public posting: Facebook Messenger and Snapchat are primary for 1:1 and small-group communication; WhatsApp adoption present within bilingual/immigrant households.
• Commerce discovery: Marketplace and Facebook/Instagram posts drive local service and retail discovery; short-form video boosts trial for food, fitness, salons, and events.
• Time-of-day cadence: Peaks in early morning and evenings; strong weekend engagement around events, youth sports, and church/community activities.
• Cross-posting and redundancy: Small businesses commonly cross-post Facebook + Instagram; short-form video reposted across TikTok/Reels/YouTube Shorts for reach.

Method and sources

• Demographics: U.S. Census Bureau (ACS/Census, latest available estimates for Madison County).
• Platform usage rates: Pew Research Center, Social Media Use in 2024. Local platform reach counts are proportional estimates applying Pew’s adult usage rates to Madison County’s adult population.