Clark County

Key demographics for Clark County, Nevada (latest available estimates; U.S. Census Bureau 2023 Population Estimates and 2023 ACS 1-year):

• Population: ~2.36 million (July 1, 2023)
• Age:
  • Median age: ~38.5
  • Under 18: ~23%
  • 18–64: ~61%
  • 65+: ~16%
• Sex:
  • Male: ~50.3%
  • Female: ~49.7%
• Race/ethnicity (mutually exclusive; Hispanic can be any race):
  • Hispanic or Latino: ~32–33%
  • White (non-Hispanic): ~39–40%
  • Black or African American (non-Hispanic): ~12%
  • Asian (non-Hispanic): ~11%
  • Two or more races (non-Hispanic): ~4%
  • Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander (non-Hispanic): ~1%
  • American Indian/Alaska Native (non-Hispanic): ~1%
• Households:
  • Total households: ~890,000
  • Average household size: ~2.7
  • Family households: ~64% of households
  • Homeownership rate: ~58% owner-occupied, ~42% renter-occupied
  • Median household income (2023 dollars): roughly low-$70,000s

Notes: Figures are rounded; ACS values are survey estimates and may have margins of error. Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2023 ACS 1-year and 2023 Population Estimates Program.

Email users (estimate)

• ≈2.0 million residents (about 85% of Clark County’s ≈2.35M population) use email, based on local internet access (92%) and national email adoption among internet users (93%). [U.S. Census ACS 2023; Pew Research Center]

Age split of email users (approx.)

• 13–17: 5–6%
• 18–29: 22%
• 30–49: 36%
• 50–64: 23%
• 65+: 13–14% (Older adults participate slightly less than younger groups.)

Gender

• ~50% female, ~50% male; minimal usage gap by gender. [Pew]

Digital access trends and local connectivity

• 87–90% of households subscribe to broadband; 92–94% have a computer. About 15–20% are smartphone‑only internet households. [ACS 2023]
• Fixed broadband median download in the Las Vegas Valley ≈230–260 Mbps; 5G median ≈100–150 Mbps. [Ookla, 2024]
• FCC maps show >98% of residents have 25/3 Mbps availability, with widespread cable gigabit and expanding fiber; affordability and lower subscription rates persist in some lower‑income tracts. [FCC National Broadband Map]
• Highly urbanized: ~70%+ of Nevada’s population lives in Clark County; most residents are in the Las Vegas Valley, supporting dense network infrastructure and extensive public Wi‑Fi (libraries, schools).

Mobile phone usage in Clark County, Nevada — with emphasis on how it differs from statewide patterns

At-a-glance user estimates

• Residents: roughly 2.3 million people live in Clark County (Las Vegas metro).
• Resident handset users: about 1.8–2.0 million people use a mobile phone regularly (driven by high urban adoption).
• Resident smartphone users: about 1.6–1.9 million (smartphones account for the vast majority of handsets).
• Active handset lines: 2.0–2.3 million resident handset lines when accounting for people with multiple lines/phones; total cellular connections (including wearables/tablets/IoT) are materially higher.
• Non-resident demand: large conventions, sports, and tourism add hundreds of thousands of concurrent roaming devices on peak weekends, creating sustained network loads well above the resident baseline—far more pronounced than elsewhere in Nevada.

How Clark County differs from Nevada overall

• Coverage and speeds: Far denser 5G (mid-band and mmWave hotspots) and small-cell grids than the rest of the state; rural Nevada still has significant 4G-only and uncovered areas.
• Indoor performance emphasis: Unique concentration of carrier-grade, multi-operator DAS in megaresorts, casinos, arenas, and the convention center—much more extensive than anywhere else in the state.
• Event-driven traffic: The Strip, Allegiant Stadium, T-Mobile Arena, Sphere, and LVCC drive extreme, predictable surges; carriers routinely deploy temporary capacity (COWs/COLTs). This event cadence is unlike other NV counties.
• Tourism and international roaming: Exceptionally high volumes of short-stay, international, and eSIM roamers; not a major factor in most of Nevada.
• Device mix and plans: Higher share of prepaid/MVNO and eSIM usage tied to service workers, renters, and travelers; rural Nevada skews more toward postpaid legacy lines where coverage exists.
• Smartphone-only households: Higher prevalence of households that rely on smartphones for home internet access (linked to renters and lower-income urban segments) versus the statewide average.
• Usage patterns: More late-night/early-morning traffic due to hospitality and gig-economy shift work; statewide patterns outside Clark skew to daytime peaks.
• App ecosystem: Above-average use of ride-hailing, food delivery, casino/resort apps, sports/entertainment ticketing, and multilingual messaging; less pronounced outside Clark.

Demographic usage profile (drivers of demand)

• Age and household: Clark’s population skews younger than much of the rest of Nevada, supporting high smartphone penetration and app-centric usage; sizable renter share correlates with prepaid and smartphone-only connectivity.
• Race/ethnicity and language: Larger Hispanic, Asian, and Black communities than the state average translate to higher use of bilingual interfaces and cross-border messaging apps (e.g., WhatsApp, WeChat, Line, Telegram).
• Workforce: A large hospitality, retail, and logistics workforce leans on mobile for shift scheduling, payments, transit, and gig work tools—raising off-peak and location-based demand around resort corridors and industrial zones.
• Affordability: Greater sensitivity to plan price and flexibility leads to strong MVNO and prepaid adoption; device financing and refurbished handset use are common in value-seeking segments.

Digital infrastructure highlights

• 5G footprint: All national carriers provide extensive mid-band 5G across urban Clark; mmWave is deployed at high-traffic venues and along parts of the Strip for capacity.
• Small cells and DAS: Dense small-cell deployments along resort corridors; neutral-host and carrier-owned DAS are standard in casinos, hotels, malls, stadiums, and the convention center to handle thick walls and crowds.
• Backhaul and edge: Robust metro fiber supporting venues and small cells; presence of data centers and regional edge nodes in/near Las Vegas reduces latency for gaming, streaming, and betting apps.
• Public Wi‑Fi offload: Ubiquitous Wi‑Fi in resorts and convention spaces offloads significant traffic; carriers engineer for heavy Wi‑Fi/cellular handoffs—again, far more than elsewhere in NV.
• Resilience and operations: Networks are tuned for extreme heat, indoor cooling constraints, and frequent large events; power backup and rapid temporary capacity are part of standard playbooks in Clark.
• Airports and corridors: Harry Reid International Airport and the I‑15 corridor have targeted 5G capacity and small cells given traveler volumes; this level of airport-centric engineering is unique within NV.

Notes on method and uncertainty

• Estimates are derived from Clark County population baselines, national/urban smartphone ownership rates (e.g., Pew Research), and typical urban multipliers for multi-line users and connected devices. Visitor-driven demand produces large, short-term deviations, so peak device counts and traffic can exceed resident-based estimates by a wide margin.
• For project-critical decisions, verify with the latest ACS demographics, FCC/Broadband Data Collection maps, carrier coverage disclosures, and venue/operator engineering updates; Las Vegas event calendars (CES, Formula 1, Super Bowl, residency shows) materially affect month-to-month network behavior.

Clark County, NV social media snapshot (short)

Topline size

• Population ≈ 2.34M; adults 18+ ≈ 1.83M.
• Applying national adoption locally, an estimated 1.5–1.6M adults in Clark County use social media.

Most-used platforms (adults; percentages apply Pew’s 2024 U.S. rates to Clark County’s 18+ population; local counts are approximate)

• YouTube: 83% (~1.52M)
• Facebook: 68% (~1.24M)
• Instagram: 47% (~0.86M)
• TikTok: 33% (~0.60M)
• LinkedIn: 30% (~0.55M)
• Snapchat: 27% (~0.49M)
• X (Twitter): 22% (~0.40M)

Age-group patterns (local behavior generally tracks U.S. trends)

• Teens (13–17): Heavy on YouTube, TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram; Facebook minimal. Short‑form video and DMs > feeds.
• 18–34: Instagram + TikTok dominate daily attention; YouTube near‑universal; Snapchat strong for messaging; Facebook used for groups/events and Marketplace rather than posting.
• 35–54: Facebook and YouTube lead; Instagram growing; TikTok usage rising, especially for food/entertainment.
• 55+: Facebook and YouTube dominate; Nextdoor adoption higher in suburbs (Henderson, Summerlin); WhatsApp common for family comms.

Gender tilt (directional)

• Near‑even on Facebook.
• More women on Instagram, TikTok, Pinterest, Snapchat.
• More men on YouTube, Reddit, X.
• LinkedIn slightly male-leaning in hospitality/trades; near‑even in corporate/admin roles.

Local behavioral trends to know

• Event- and nightlife-driven discovery: Reels/TikToks about shows, restaurants, clubs, and pop‑ups perform strongly; geotags and local hashtags matter.
• Late-night engagement: Service/hospitality schedules shift peak activity later (9pm–1am) vs typical markets; lunch (11am–1pm) spikes for F&B content.
• Deals and community: Facebook Groups, Marketplace, and Instagram Stories for promos, BOGOs, and last‑minute offers; user tagging/UGC drives foot traffic.
• Bilingual demand: Large Hispanic population; Spanish or bilingual captions improve reach and shares for food, family services, and events.
• Local influencers: Micro‑creators (foodies, nightlife, family, outdoors) outperform macro for conversions; comped experiences common value exchange.
• Sports spikes: Golden Knights, Raiders, Aces, UFC cards create real‑time surges; short, reactive video and polls see above‑baseline engagement.
• Tourism vs residents: Visitor content inflates geotag visibility; for resident targeting, use suburban geos (Henderson, North Las Vegas, Spring Valley, Summerlin) and exclude Strip corridors when appropriate.
• Review ecosystems: Social fuels Google Maps/Yelp discovery; prompt for cross‑posted UGC/reviews after service to compound visibility.

Notes on method

• Population: U.S. Census/ACS. Platform percentages: Pew Research Center 2024 (U.S. adults), applied to Clark County’s adult population to derive local counts; use as planning estimates, not exact user files. For campaign planning, validate with platform audience tools (location = Clark County or Las Vegas‑Henderson‑Paradise).