Granville County

Granville County, North Carolina — Key Demographics (latest U.S. Census Bureau estimates)

Population size

• Total population: ~62,000 (ACS 2019–2023; 2020 Census baseline ~61,000)

Age

• Median age: ~42 years
• Under 18: ~21%
• 18–64: ~61%
• 65 and over: ~18%

Gender

• Male: ~52%
• Female: ~48% (Note: Elevated male share influenced by the Butner correctional/medical complex)

Racial/ethnic composition (Hispanic can be any race)

• White (non-Hispanic): ~54%
• Black or African American (non-Hispanic): ~33%
• Hispanic/Latino (any race): ~9%
• Two or more races (non-Hispanic): ~3%
• Asian (non-Hispanic): ~1%
• American Indian/Alaska Native and other: <1% combined

Household data

• Total households: ~23,000
• Average household size: ~2.5 persons
• Family households: ~68–70% of households
• Married-couple families: ~45–50% of households
• Households with children under 18: ~28%
• Nonfamily households: ~30%+; living alone ~25% (including a notable share age 65+)

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2019–2023 5-year estimates; 2020 Decennial Census.

Granville County, NC (pop. ≈61,500) email landscape

Estimated users: ≈50,000 residents use email (≈81% of total; ≈93% of adults), based on Pew adult email adoption applied to local demographics.

Age distribution of email users (share of users):

• 13–17: 6%
• 18–34: 24%
• 35–54: 34%
• 55–64: 18%
• 65+: 18%

Gender split among users: ≈51% female, 49% male, mirroring county demographics; usage is essentially parity by gender.

Digital access and trends:

• ≈85% of households have a broadband subscription (ACS 2022), with a gradual uptick in recent years.
• ≈12–14% of households are smartphone‑only internet users, shaping mobile‑first email behavior.
• Fixed broadband is strongest in Oxford, Butner, and Creedmoor and along I‑85/US‑15; northern/eastern rural tracts show more underserved locations.
• Libraries and schools provide public Wi‑Fi that supplements access for lower‑connectivity households.

Local density/connectivity facts:

• Population density ≈114 residents per square mile.
• Multiple access modes (cable, fiber in growth corridors, DSL, and fixed wireless) plus 4G/5G along major corridors support high email reach.

Implications: Email reach is effectively universal among working‑age adults; seniors and rural low‑connectivity pockets are the main holdouts.

Mobile phone usage in Granville County, North Carolina (as of 2024)

Context and topline size

• Population baseline: 60,992 (2020 Census); 2023 estimate ≈ 61.5–62.0k. Adults (18+) ≈ 46.5–47.5k.
• Settlement pattern: Small towns (Oxford, Butner, Creedmoor) along I-85/US-15 with rural north/east; proximity to the Raleigh–Durham market but with distinctly rural last-mile conditions.

User estimates

• Mobile phone users (any handset): ≈ 44–46k adults (93–97% of adults).
• Smartphone users: ≈ 40–41k adults (84–87% of adults), slightly below the state average by ~2–4 percentage points due to older age mix and rural pockets.
• Prepaid share: ≈ 30–34% of active handsets (about 12–14k lines), higher than the NC average (~24–28%), reflecting lower fixed-broadband availability and income mix.
• Mobile-only internet households: ≈ 4.3–5.2k households (19–23% of households), above the NC average (~15–18%). This drives heavier per-line data use versus urban counties.

Demographic breakdown (ownership and reliance)

• By age (smartphone ownership among adults; local estimates)
  • 18–29: ~94–97% (≈ 8.0–8.4k users)
  • 30–49: ~92–96% (≈ 12.5–13.2k)
  • 50–64: ~85–90% (≈ 10.3–11.0k)
  • 65+: ~70–75% (≈ 8.8–9.6k)
  • Distinct trend from NC overall: a larger 65+ share and lower senior adoption reduce the countywide average relative to the state.
• By race/ethnicity (share of adults; smartphone ownership; mobile-only internet reliance)
  • White, non-Hispanic (~54–56% of population): smartphone ~82–86%; mobile-only households ~14–18%.
  • Black/African American (~30–32%): smartphone ~84–88%; mobile-only households ~22–28% (above county average).
  • Hispanic/Latino (~8–10%): smartphone ~86–90%; mobile-only households ~25–32% (above county average).
  • Distinct trend from NC: higher mobile-only reliance among Black and Hispanic residents within the county magnified by patchier fixed broadband in rural tracts.
• Income effects
  • < $35k household income: smartphone ownership ~78–84%; mobile-only households ~28–35%.
  • ≥ $75k: smartphone ownership ~92–96%; mobile-only households ~8–12%.
  • Distinct trend: the gap between lower- and higher-income segments is wider than the statewide average because cable/fiber options thin out quickly outside town centers.

Digital infrastructure and performance

• Carrier presence and radio access
  • All three nationals (AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon) provide 4G LTE countywide coverage; 5G is established in and around Oxford–Butner–Creedmoor and along I-85.
  • Low-band 5G (coverage layer): ~90–95% of population outdoors.
  • Mid-band 5G (capacity layer: T-Mobile n41, Verizon/AT&T C-band n77): ~40–55% of population, concentrated along I-85 and town centers.
  • Distinct trend from NC: Granville’s mid-band 5G footprint is materially smaller than the state’s urbanized average (~70–80%), creating a steeper town–rural speed gap.
• Typical user speeds (downlink, real-world)
  • Town centers and I-85 corridor: ~100–300 Mbps on mid-band 5G; 25–80 Mbps on LTE or low-band 5G indoors.
  • Rural north/east: ~10–40 Mbps on LTE/low-band 5G; indoor performance often <10–15 Mbps without Wi‑Fi calling.
  • Distinct trend: performance variance by location/time of day is higher than statewide norms, with noticeable evening congestion where cable/fiber is sparse and users lean on mobile hotspots.
• Sites and backhaul patterns
  • Macro sites clustered near Oxford, Butner, Creedmoor, and along I-85/US‑15; fewer sites in the county’s northeast and along the Kerr Lake fringe.
  • Fiber backhaul is strongest along the interstate and municipal cores; many rural sectors rely on longer microwave hops, limiting peak capacity and 5G carrier aggregation depth.
• Fixed-broadband overlap influencing mobile reliance
  • Cable (DOCSIS) availability: roughly 55–65% of households in and around towns.
  • Fiber-to-the-home: roughly 10–20% of households, growing but still below state average.
  • DSL/wireless ISP fills most remaining addresses, often at ≤25 Mbps. This underpins above-average mobile hotspot usage and prepaid adoption.

Behavioral and usage notes

• Daytime load hotspots align with institutional and industrial sites around Butner and the Oxford corridor; school-year peaks are visible around campuses and sports facilities.
• Device replacement cycles trend slightly longer than state average, with a higher share of sub‑6 GHz devices and fewer mmWave-capable phones in active use outside town centers.

What’s measurably different from the North Carolina average

• Lower overall smartphone penetration (by ~2–4 pp) driven by an older population share and rural coverage constraints.
• Higher prepaid penetration (by ~4–6 pp) and higher mobile-only household share (by ~3–6 pp).
• Smaller mid-band 5G footprint (by ~20–30 pp), creating a larger performance gap between town centers and rural edges.
• Heavier reliance on mobile data for primary home connectivity in rural tracts, which elevates per-line usage and evening congestion relative to the state’s urban counties.

Methodological basis

• Estimates synthesize the 2020 Census and 2023 population estimates for Granville County, ACS demographic mix, statewide and rural smartphone adoption benchmarks from Pew Research through 2023–2024, FCC mobile coverage filings and carrier public 5G deployment disclosures, and observed rural–urban performance differentials in North Carolina as of 2024. Figures are rounded to practical ranges to reflect local variation within the county.

Granville County, NC social media snapshot (2025)

Baseline (ACS 2019–2023; rounded):

• Population: ≈62,000; adults 18+: ≈48,000
• Gender (18+): ≈51.6% women, 48.4% men

Overall social media penetration (adults 18+):

• Adults using at least one platform: ≈74–75% (≈35,000–36,000)

Most-used platforms among adults (share of all adults; estimated users):

• YouTube: 83% ≈ 39,800
• Facebook: 68% ≈ 32,600
• Instagram: 47% ≈ 22,600
• TikTok: 33% ≈ 15,800
• Pinterest: 31% ≈ 14,900
• LinkedIn: 30% ≈ 14,400
• Snapchat: 30% ≈ 14,400
• X (Twitter): 23% ≈ 11,000
• Reddit: 22% ≈ 10,600
• WhatsApp: 21% ≈ 10,100

Usage by age (share using any social; estimated adult users):

• 18–29: ~93% (≈8,000 of ≈8,600)
• 30–49: ~82% (≈13,000 of ≈15,800)
• 50–64: ~73% (≈9,500 of ≈13,000)
• 65+: ~50% (≈5,300 of ≈10,600)

Gender breakdown (any social; estimated):

• Women: ~75% of adult women (≈18,600)
• Men: ~72% of adult men (≈16,700)
• Platform skews: Women over-index on Facebook and Pinterest; men over-index on Reddit and X. Instagram is balanced; TikTok skews younger across genders; LinkedIn usage concentrates among college-educated professionals.

Behavioral trends observed in similar suburban–rural NC counties and reflected locally:

• Community-first Facebook: Heavy use of Facebook Groups and Pages for schools, churches, local government, buy/sell/trade, and event info; Facebook remains the primary discovery and discussion hub for 30–64.
• Video-forward consumption: YouTube is the default for news explainers, how-to, sports highlights, and local content; short-form video (Reels/TikTok) drives reach among 18–34 and performs well for local businesses and events.
• Mobile and evening peaks: Engagement skews mobile, with higher interaction in early mornings and especially evenings (post-work), plus weekend spikes around youth sports and festivals.
• Messaging integration: Facebook Messenger is widely used for inquiries and transactions with local sellers and small businesses; WhatsApp usage is present but smaller and clustered in specific communities.
• Commerce and call-to-action: Click-to-call, directions, and messaging CTAs outperform long web forms; Instagram and Facebook ads are most efficient for reach and conversions locally, while TikTok is strong for awareness among younger adults.
• Trust and local information: Residents rely on official county/school pages and known community admins for timely updates (weather, closures, roadwork), with high comment and share rates on hyperlocal posts.

Method and sources

• County population and age/gender structure: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2019–2023 (rounded).
• Platform adoption rates and age/gender differentials: Pew Research Center, U.S. adult social media use (latest available through 2024).
• Figures are modeled by applying Pew’s U.S. adult adoption rates to Granville County’s adult population; numbers are rounded to reflect estimation.