Cleveland County

Here are concise, recent demographics for Cleveland County, NC.

Population

• Total: 99,519 (2020 Census)
• Approximate current (ACS 2018–2022): ~100,000

Age

• Median age: ~42
• Under 18: ~22%
• 18–64: ~59%
• 65 and over: ~19%

Sex

• Female: ~52%
• Male: ~48%

Race/ethnicity (ACS 2018–2022, rounded)

• White (non-Hispanic): ~72–73%
• Black/African American (non-Hispanic): ~20%
• Hispanic/Latino (any race): ~4–5%
• Two or more races (non-Hispanic): ~2%
• Asian (non-Hispanic): ~1%
• American Indian/Alaska Native and other: <1%

Households (ACS 2018–2022)

• Number of households: ~39,000
• Average household size: ~2.4
• Family households: ~65%
• Tenure: ~69% owner-occupied, ~31% renter-occupied

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (2020 Decennial Census; 2018–2022 American Community Survey 5-year estimates). Figures rounded for readability.

Summary for Cleveland County, NC (estimates)

• Estimated email users: 70–80k out of ~100k residents (based on Census population and typical NC/U.S. internet/email adoption).
• Age distribution (share using email):
  • 13–17: ~70–80%
  • 18–34: ~95–99%
  • 35–54: ~92–97%
  • 55–64: ~85–92%
  • 65+: ~70–85%
• Gender split: Usage is nearly even; among users, roughly mirrors population (~52% female, ~48% male).
• Digital access trends:
  • ~70–80% of households have home broadband; 10–15% of adults are smartphone‑only for internet.
  • Public libraries and schools provide Wi‑Fi/computer access; affordability pressures (e.g., ACP wind‑down in 2024) may increase reliance on public or mobile access.
• Local density/connectivity facts:
  • Population density ≈210–215 people/sq mi (about 100k over ~468 sq mi); infrastructure is strongest in and around Shelby and Kings Mountain (US‑74/I‑85 corridors), with rural areas more dependent on DSL, fixed wireless, or satellite and showing lower adoption speeds.

Notes: Figures are modeled from national/state patterns (Pew/FCC/Census) adjusted for the county’s mixed urban‑rural profile; local survey results may vary.

Below is a concise, data-informed snapshot for Cleveland County, NC. Figures are estimates derived from county demographics (ACS), statewide benchmarks, and national usage patterns (e.g., Pew Research), adjusted for Cleveland County’s older, more rural, lower‑income profile. Use ranges as planning bounds; exact values vary by tract.

County snapshot

• Population: ~100,000; adults (18+): ~77,000–80,000
• Geography: Predominantly rural with small urban centers (Shelby, Kings Mountain, Boiling Springs); major corridors US‑74 and I‑85 (eastern edge)

Estimated mobile phone users

• Adult smartphone users: ~68,000–72,000 (about 85–90% of adults; 2–4 points below NC overall)
• Households with at least one smartphone: ~35,000–37,000 (roughly 88–92% of ~40,000 households)
• Mobile‑only internet households (rely on cellular, no home wireline broadband): ~14–18% (vs NC ~11–13%)
• Prepaid share of mobile lines: elevated, ~30–35% (vs NC ~25–28%), reflecting price sensitivity

Demographic breakdown (how Cleveland differs from NC)

• Age: Higher share of 65+ than NC; smartphone adoption among 65+ estimated ~70–78% locally (vs ~76–80% statewide). Practical effect: more basic plans/devices, later upgrade cycles, heavier voice/text and messaging app use vs streaming.
• Income: Median household income below NC average; correlates with higher prepaid usage, multiline discount plans, and device financing through carriers vs retail.
• Rurality: Larger rural share than NC; higher mobile‑only reliance where cable/fiber is limited; more signal variability indoors and in hollows/wooded areas.
• Race/ethnicity: County skews more White and Black, smaller Hispanic/Latino share than NC overall; usage gaps map more to income/age and service availability than to race/ethnicity per se.

Usage patterns vs state-level

• Slightly lower overall smartphone penetration, but higher dependence on smartphones for primary internet in rural tracts.
• Heavier use of data‑capped and prepaid plans; hotspotting used as a substitute for home broadband more often than the NC average.
• Device replacement cycles longer; more LTE‑only or entry‑level 5G devices still in circulation.
• Peak‑time congestion more noticeable on corridors and around schools/campuses (e.g., Boiling Springs) than in comparable NC suburbs, due to fewer sites per capita.

Digital infrastructure highlights

• Coverage and technology:
  • All three national carriers (AT&T, T‑Mobile, Verizon) cover the county; 5G is common in towns and along US‑74 and I‑85. Mid‑band 5G (e.g., n41, C‑band) is strongest in Shelby, Kings Mountain, and highway corridors; rural areas often fall back to LTE or low‑band 5G.
  • Indoor coverage gaps persist in the foothill/wooded western and northern parts; in‑building performance lags state urban/suburban norms.
• Sites and capacity:
  • Macro sites are concentrated near Shelby, Kings Mountain/I‑85, and US‑74; site density thins quickly off‑corridor. Small‑cell use is limited compared with NC metros; capacity upgrades tend to be sector adds and carrier aggregation rather than dense infill.
• Backhaul and fiber:
  • Town centers have better fiber backhaul, supporting mid‑band 5G. Outside municipal areas, more microwave or legacy backhaul remains, contributing to variable 5G performance vs NC metro counties.
• Public safety and redundancy:
  • FirstNet (AT&T) coverage is good along primary corridors; volunteer fire/EMS areas may still see spotty indoor coverage where terrain blocks signals—more pronounced than statewide averages.
• Public Wi‑Fi and anchors:
  • Libraries, schools, and the university area in Boiling Springs act as important offload nodes; reliance on anchor Wi‑Fi is higher than the NC average in rural tracts.

Trends to watch (distinct from statewide)

• Uptake of fixed wireless access (FWA) 5G as a wireline substitute is rising faster than the NC average in underserved tracts, reducing the mobile‑only household share over time but shifting traffic to cellular networks at home.
• Mid‑band 5G expansion is narrowing the performance gap in towns, but rural indoor coverage improvements will depend on additional sites or repeaters—Cleveland lags NC metros on this.
• As ACP ended/fades, expect a modest increase in prepaid churn and data‑capped plan use locally, with a bigger effect than statewide due to higher low‑income share.

Planning implications

• Prioritize mid‑band infill and in‑building solutions in Shelby/Kings Mountain and along US‑74; pursue additional macro coverage to the west/north where indoor gaps persist.
• Support FWA where cable/fiber is absent; pair with device affordability programs for older/low‑income users.
• Leverage anchors (schools, libraries) as managed Wi‑Fi offload and digital literacy hubs to mitigate mobile‑only pressures.

Notes on method and validation

• Estimates combine ACS population/household structure with Pew adoption by age/income/rurality and typical NC county differentials; infrastructure points reflect carrier deployment patterns in similar NC foothill counties and known corridor build‑outs.
• For precise local figures, check ACS table S2801 (computer/smartphone and internet subscription), FCC Broadband Data Collection (mobile and FWA coverage), and crowd‑sourced performance maps for mid‑band 5G footprint and congestion.

Below is a concise, data‑informed snapshot for Cleveland County, NC. Because true county‑level social media surveys are rare, figures use recent U.S. benchmarks (primarily Pew Research Center 2023–2024) scaled to Cleveland County’s adult population. Treat them as reasonable local estimates, not exact counts.

At a glance

• Population: ~100,000; adults (18+): ~78,000
• Estimated adults using at least one social platform: 70–75% ≈ 55,000–58,000

Most‑used platforms among adults (estimated local penetration)

• YouTube: 83% of adults (65k)
• Facebook: 68% (53k)
• Instagram: 47% (37k)
• Pinterest: 35% (27k)
• TikTok: 33% (26k)
• Snapchat: 30% (23k)
• LinkedIn: 30% (23k)
• WhatsApp: 29% (23k)
• X (Twitter): 22% (17k)
• Reddit: 22% (17k)

Age‑group patterns (apply these national rates locally)

• 18–29: YouTube ~95%; Instagram ~70–80%; Snapchat ~60–70%; TikTok ~60%+; Facebook ~60–70%
• 30–49: YouTube ~90%+; Facebook ~75–80%; Instagram ~55–60%; TikTok ~35–40%
• 50–64: Facebook ~70%+; YouTube ~80%+; Instagram ~25–30%; TikTok ~15–20%
• 65+: Facebook ~45–55%; YouTube ~45–55%; Instagram ~10–20%; TikTok ~5–10%
• Teens (13–17; if relevant for schools/rec/leagues): YouTube ~95%+, TikTok ~65–70%, Snapchat ~60%+, Instagram ~60%+, Facebook ~30% (national)

Gender tendencies (directional, national patterns applied locally)

• Women: More likely to use Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest, TikTok, Snapchat
• Men: More likely to use YouTube, Reddit, X (Twitter); slight edge on LinkedIn
• Pinterest skews strongly female; Reddit skews male; Facebook and Instagram have mild female tilt

Behavioral trends seen in similar NC micropolitan counties (likely in Cleveland County)

• Facebook is the local “utility”: heavy use of Groups (community news, school athletics, buy/sell), Marketplace, and event promotion. Local news posts and public‑safety updates drive comments/shares.
• YouTube is the default “how‑to” and church/live‑stream hub; strong for DIY, automotive, home repair, and faith communities.
• Under‑35s cluster on Instagram Reels, TikTok, and Snapchat for daily socializing; cross‑posting Reels/Shorts/TikToks is common.
• Messaging: Facebook Messenger dominates for businesses and community coordination; WhatsApp use appears concentrated among Hispanic/international communities and some small businesses.
• Content that performs: hyper‑local stories, school and sports highlights, church and non‑profit updates, seasonal events, and practical services (home, auto, health). UGC and word‑of‑mouth in local groups strongly influence purchase decisions.
• Timing: Engagement typically peaks early morning (6–8am), lunch (12–1pm), and evenings (7–10pm); weekends are strong for events and retail.

Notes on method and sources

• Adult population estimated from recent Census/ACS figures; platform penetrations from Pew Research Center 2023–2024 U.S. social media adoption. Local counts above equal “national adult adoption rate × ~78,000 adults in Cleveland County.”