Rowan County

Rowan County, North Carolina — key demographics (latest Census/ACS)

Population size

• 2023 population estimate: ~155,000 (up from 146,875 in 2020 Census)

Age

• Median age: ~41 years
• Under 18: ~22–23%
• 18–64: ~58–59%
• 65 and over: ~18–19%

Gender

• Female: ~51%
• Male: ~49%

Racial/ethnic composition (mutually exclusive; Hispanic is any race)

• White, non-Hispanic: ~67–69%
• Black or African American, non-Hispanic: ~16–17%
• Hispanic or Latino: ~9–10%
• Two or more races, non-Hispanic: ~3%
• Asian, non-Hispanic: ~1%
• Other (incl. American Indian/Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander), non-Hispanic: ~1–2%

Households and housing

• Total households: ~58,000–59,000
• Average household size: ~2.5 persons
• Family households: ~66% of households; married-couple families ~45–47%
• Households with children under 18: ~27–29%
• Living alone: ~27–29% of households; 65+ living alone ~10–11%
• Homeownership rate: ~70–72% (owner-occupied); renter-occupied ~28–30%

Notes

• Figures reflect U.S. Census Bureau 2020 Decennial Census (population baseline), 2023 Population Estimates Program (current population), and recent American Community Survey 5-year estimates for age, sex, race/ethnicity, and household characteristics.

Rowan County, NC snapshot (≈150,000 residents across ≈524 sq mi; ≈285 people/sq mi)

Estimated email users

• Adults using email: ≈98,000–105,000 (≈83–90% of ≈117,000 adults)
• Overall usage mirrors national norms where email is a top online activity

Age distribution (estimated adoption among adults)

• 18–29: ≈97%
• 30–49: ≈95%
• 50–64: ≈90%
• 65+: ≈80% This skews the active email audience toward 30–64, with strong but slightly lower uptake among seniors.

Gender split

• Roughly even, reflecting the county’s population (~51% women, ~49% men)

Digital access and trends

• Households with a broadband subscription: ≈82–86%
• Households with a computer (of any type): ≈89–93%
• Smartphone-only internet users: ≈17–20% of adults
• 5G and high-speed options concentrate along the I‑85 corridor and in Salisbury; rural townships have more DSL/fixed‑wireless reliance and lower speeds
• Municipal and private fiber exists in core population centers, with ongoing fill‑in to outlying areas

Implications: High broadband and device access sustain broad email reach; seniors are the main gap. Urban clusters along I‑85 offer the strongest connectivity and highest email engagement.

Rowan County, NC mobile phone usage summary (focus on county-specific patterns vs. statewide)

Scale and user estimates

• Population and households: ~155,000 residents and ~60,000 households (2023 Census estimates).
• Mobile phone users: ~130,000 residents use a mobile phone (≈85% of total population), with 105,000–112,000 adult smartphone users. This reflects slightly lower adult smartphone penetration than the North Carolina average because of Rowan’s older age profile and lower median household income.
• Active mobile lines: 140,000–170,000 active mobile lines are likely in service countywide (assumes 1.2–1.4 lines per resident, in line with national utilization).
• Mobile-only home internet: 7,000–8,000 households rely primarily on a cellular data plan for home internet (≈12–14% of households), a higher share than the statewide average (~10–11%).
• No home internet subscription: 9,000 households (≈15%) report no internet subscription, above the statewide rate (12%). This raises the relative importance of smartphones for basic connectivity.

Demographic breakdown (how Rowan differs from North Carolina overall)

• Age:
  • 18–34: Near-saturation smartphone ownership (≈95–97%); above-average reliance on mobile-only home internet (≈18–22%), higher than the state’s young-adult share.
  • 35–64: High smartphone ownership (≈92–94%); mobile-only home internet around 11–14%, slightly above state norms.
  • 65+: Lower smartphone ownership (≈75–80%) than the statewide senior rate; mobile-only use at ~8–10%. The county’s larger senior share pulls overall smartphone penetration slightly below the NC average.
• Income:
  • Under $35k: Mobile-only home internet around 22–27% (statewide closer to ~20–23%), driven by cost sensitivity and gaps in affordable fiber/cable in rural tracts.
  • $35k–$75k: 13–16% mobile-only (above state average by a few points).
  • $75k+: 6–8% mobile-only (near the state average).
• Race/ethnicity:
  • Hispanic and Black households show higher mobile-only reliance than White non-Hispanic households, reflecting affordability and availability dynamics; the gap is somewhat wider in Rowan than statewide because fixed-broadband availability drops off more quickly outside Salisbury/China Grove.

Digital infrastructure and coverage (county specifics)

• 5G footprint: All three national carriers (AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile) offer 5G across the I‑85 corridor (Salisbury, China Grove, Landis), with mid-band overlays (C‑Band for AT&T/Verizon and 2.5 GHz for T‑Mobile) concentrated along the interstate and in Salisbury. Low-band 5G extends coverage to rural edges but with lower capacity.
• Fiber backhaul strength in Salisbury: The city’s municipal fiber network (now operated as Hotwire Fision; formerly Fibrant) provides dense fiber backhaul. This supports small-cell densification and above-average urban mobile performance relative to similarly sized NC counties.
• Rural gaps: Western and eastern townships (e.g., Mount Ulla, Gold Hill–Richfield edge areas) show sparser macro site density and fewer fiber-fed nodes, which keeps a larger share of households on mobile-only or fixed wireless access (FWA) solutions than the state average.
• Fixed wireless access (FWA) adoption: Verizon and T-Mobile 5G FWA sign-ups are growing faster than the state average on a per-household basis, filling wireline gaps and replacing some DSL/copper. A few thousand FWA households countywide is a reasonable current estimate.
• Transportation corridors: I‑85 and US‑29/NC‑152 host the highest density of macro towers and small cells; performance drops moving away from these corridors.
• Public assets and institutions: Water towers, school facilities, and municipal fiber rings in Salisbury provide attractive colocation/backhaul for carrier upgrades, accelerating urban/suburban improvements relative to rural tracts.

Key trends that differ from state-level

• Higher mobile-only reliance: Rowan’s mobile-only household share (≈12–14%) exceeds North Carolina’s average (~10–11%), driven by rural availability gaps and price sensitivity.
• Slightly lower overall smartphone and home broadband adoption: The county’s older median age and lower median household income pull adoption a few points below statewide averages.
• Faster uptake of 5G FWA: Because FWA offers competitive speeds where cable/fiber are limited, Rowan’s FWA penetration is outpacing the statewide norm.
• Strong urban core, weaker rural periphery: Salisbury’s fiber-rich backhaul yields better 5G capacity and consistency than peer NC micropolitan areas, but the county’s fringe areas see below-average 5G capacity and higher dead-zone complaints.

Implications

• Network investment payoffs are highest in: Salisbury/China Grove small-cell densification and rural macro upgrades with fiber-fed backhaul on the county’s western and eastern edges.
• Market mix: Above-average demand for prepaid/value plans and unlimited data among mobile-only households; strong potential for bundled FWA offerings where cable/fiber is absent or costly.
• Digital equity: Libraries, schools, and county programs that distribute hotspots or subsidize service address a larger-than-average no-subscription segment, making mobile connectivity central to inclusion.

Primary data foundations

• U.S. Census Bureau (2023 population and household estimates).
• American Community Survey (ACS 2022, S2801: device ownership and internet subscription) for county vs. state comparisons.
• FCC National Broadband Map and carrier public coverage disclosures (5G mid-band overlays, FWA availability).
• Pew Research Center (national smartphone ownership benchmarks, applied with county demographic adjustments).

Rowan County, NC social media usage — 2025 snapshot (adults 18+; locally modeled from Pew Research Center 2023 social media adoption by age/rurality and Rowan County ACS demographics)

Overall usage

• Adults using any social media: 78%
• Daily social media users: 64% of adults
• Average platforms used per user: 2.6

Most-used platforms (share of adults using at least monthly)

• YouTube: 80%
• Facebook: 66%
• Instagram: 41%
• TikTok: 31%
• Snapchat: 26%
• Pinterest: 30%
• WhatsApp: 20%
• X (Twitter): 20%
• LinkedIn: 22%
• Reddit: 15%
• Nextdoor: 12%

Age groups (share of each age group using any social media)

• 18–29: 96%
• 30–49: 88%
• 50–64: 74%
• 65+: 57%

Gender breakdown

• Share of local social media users: Women 53%, Men 47%
• Platform skews among local users
  • More women: Facebook (≈58% women), Instagram (≈55% women), TikTok (≈60% women), Snapchat (≈58% women), Pinterest (≈72% women)
  • More men: YouTube (≈54% men), X/Twitter (≈60% men), Reddit (≈70% men), LinkedIn (≈53% men)

Behavioral trends

• Facebook is the community hub: high engagement in local groups (city/town pages, schools, youth sports, churches) and Marketplace; event and public-safety posts drive sharp but short-lived spikes.
• Short-form video is rising: Reels/Shorts/TikTok see strong passive viewing; posting is concentrated among younger adults and local creators, with cross-posting to Facebook common.
• Messaging-first coordination: Many community interactions move into DMs (Messenger, WhatsApp, Instagram) after initial public posts, especially for buy/sell, services, and volunteer organizing.
• News and civic info: Local news outlets and government pages get outsized reach on Facebook; county/city announcements and weather updates are reliable traffic drivers.
• Time-of-day patterns: Engagement clusters in early morning (commute/school window) and 6–9 p.m.; weekend late-morning activity outperforms weekdays.
• Multi-platform behavior: YouTube + Facebook is the dominant pairing; Instagram/TikTok augment reach for 18–39, while 50+ leans Facebook-only with occasional YouTube.
• Commerce: Facebook Marketplace is the primary local discovery channel for goods and home services; Instagram helps small retailers and food/bev via Stories and Reels.

Notes on methodology

• Percentages are county-level estimates derived by applying Pew’s 2023 platform adoption by age and urbanicity to Rowan County’s age structure (ACS) and broadband profile; values reflect at-least-monthly use to avoid overstating “ever used.”