Ashland County

Ashland County, Ohio – key demographics (most recent U.S. Census/ACS)

Population

• Total population: 52,447 (2020 Census)

Age

• Median age: ~41 years
• Under 18: ~22%
• 65 and over: ~19%

Gender

• Female: ~50.5%
• Male: ~49.5%

Race and ethnicity (ACS 2018–2022)

• White, non-Hispanic: ~93%
• Black or African American: ~1–2%
• Asian: ~0.4%
• Two or more races: ~3%
• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~2% (Note: Hispanic is an ethnicity and overlaps with race categories.)

Households (ACS 2018–2022)

• Total households: ~20,500
• Average household size: ~2.5–2.6
• Family households: ~67% (avg family size ~3.0)
• Households with children under 18: ~28%
• Tenure: ~74% owner-occupied, ~26% renter-occupied

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; American Community Survey 2018–2022 5-year estimates.

Ashland County, OH snapshot (estimates)

• Population: ~53,000; density ~125 people/sq mi (city of Ashland ~20k, rest largely rural).
• Email users: ~35,000–39,000 residents (about 65–75% of total), based on rural internet adoption and typical email usage among internet users.
• Age distribution of email use:
  • 13–29: very high adoption (≈90–98% of internet users); likely ~25–30% of local email users.
  • 30–49: near‑universal (≈95–98%); ~30–35% of email users.
  • 50–64: high but slightly lower (≈88–95%); ~20–25%.
  • 65+: lower but substantial (≈70–85%); ~15–20%.
• Gender split: roughly even; email usage rates are similar for men and women, mirroring the county’s near‑50/50 population mix.
• Digital access trends:
  • Households with a broadband subscription likely in the low‑to‑mid‑80% range, with gaps in low‑density townships.
  • 10–15% of households are smartphone‑only internet users.
  • Public access (libraries/schools) remains important for lower‑income and rural residents.
  • Cellular data (4G/5G) is strongest in/near the city of Ashland and along major corridors (e.g., I‑71/US‑250), with patchier service in outlying areas. Notes: Figures are derived from county population, rural Ohio connectivity patterns, and national email adoption benchmarks.

Summary: Mobile phone usage in Ashland County, Ohio (estimates and how it differs from Ohio overall)

Topline user estimates

• Adult population base: roughly 40–41k adults (of ~52–53k total residents).
• Adults with any mobile phone: about 37–39k (≈92–95% of adults; a touch below large-metro Ohio).
• Adult smartphone users: about 33–35k (≈83–87% of adults), a few points lower than Ohio’s statewide rate due to an older age mix and rural households.
• Cell-only households (no landline): roughly 13–15k of ~20–21k households (≈65–72%), similar to or slightly under Ohio as a whole.
• Households using cellular as primary home internet (phone hotspot or dedicated cellular router): about 3.3–4.5k (≈16–22%), typically higher than Ohio’s statewide share because wired options thin out outside Ashland city and along township roads.

Demographic patterns shaping usage

• Age: Ashland County skews older than Ohio overall. Among 65+, basic/feature-phone retention and text/voice-first behavior are more common than statewide; smartphone adoption in this cohort trails Ohio averages by several points.
• Income and plan choices: Median household income is modestly below the state median, contributing to:
  • Higher reliance on prepaid/MVNO plans and family plans.
  • Longer device replacement cycles and a slightly higher Android share than the state average.
• Students and seasonality: Ashland University increases the share of iOS users and high-data plans near campus and in Ashland city; data demand is more seasonal (peaks during academic year) than the statewide pattern.
• Rural vs. town center split:
  • In Ashland city and along I-71/US-250/US-42 corridors, plan choices and usage patterns resemble state averages.
  • In outlying townships, there is more hotspot use for home connectivity, more voice/SMS reliance where mid-band 5G is thin, and lower multi-device penetration per person.

Digital infrastructure (what stands out versus the state)

• Coverage and technology mix:
  • 4G LTE coverage is broad, but dependable mid-band 5G is concentrated near Ashland city and major corridors; low-band 5G/4G is more common across farmland and wooded areas. This yields more frequent 4G fallbacks and wider speed variability than in Ohio’s urban counties.
  • mmWave 5G presence is minimal outside a few dense spots (if any), unlike downtown cores in larger Ohio metros.
• Capacity/backhaul:
  • Sites near I-71 and the city generally have stronger backhaul and higher sector capacity; some rural sectors appear backhaul‑constrained at peak (evenings, event days), leading to slower uplinks and higher latency than state averages.
• Dead zones and terrain:
  • Rolling terrain, tree cover, and longer inter-site distances create more localized weak-signal pockets in rural townships than typical in metro counties.
• Substitution for wired broadband:
  • A higher share of households use mobile broadband as primary or backup home internet compared with Ohio overall, reflecting patchier cable/fiber footprints outside the city.
• Emergency/enterprise use:
  • Agricultural operations and small manufacturers show above-average use of cellular hotspots, private LTE routers, and push‑to‑talk apps relative to urban Ohio, with coverage improvements focused on highways, industrial parks, and fairgrounds/events.

Behavioral and device trends vs. Ohio

• Slightly lower overall smartphone penetration and lower iOS share; higher prepaid/MVNO adoption.
• More conservative data usage and plan sizes outside the city; more SMS/voice reliance among older cohorts.
• More pronounced urban–rural performance gap (mid-band 5G availability, median speeds, and latency).
• Greater seasonal swings in network load tied to the university calendar and county events.
• Higher propensity to use phones as a household’s primary internet connection where wired options are limited.

Notes on method and uncertainty

• Figures above are reasoned estimates based on recent ACS Computer and Internet Use patterns, Pew Research adoption by age/rural status, FCC mobile coverage maps, and the county’s population/settlement profile. They are intended to show scale and directionality relative to Ohio.

Below is a concise, planning‑grade snapshot modeled for Ashland County, OH. Figures are estimates derived by applying recent Pew Research platform adoption rates by age to Ashland County’s ACS demographic profile; actual values may vary by ±5–10 points.

Headline user stats

• Population: ~53,000
• Estimated social media users (13+): ~32,000 (about 60% of total population; ~75% of 13+)
• Typical daily use: multiple check-ins; heavier evening/weekend spikes; strong Facebook Group/Marketplace reliance

Age groups (share of social media users)

• 13–17: ~10%
• 18–29: ~20%
• 30–49: ~32% (largest cohort)
• 50–64: ~24%
• 65+: ~15%

Gender breakdown (of social media users)

• Female ~52%, Male ~48%
• Women over-index on Facebook and Pinterest; men over-index on YouTube and Reddit

Most-used platforms in Ashland County (estimated reach among residents 13+)

• YouTube: ~84%
• Facebook: ~66%
• Instagram: ~44%
• TikTok: ~37%
• Snapchat: ~31%
• Pinterest: ~28% (skews female)
• LinkedIn: ~16% (lower in rural areas; higher among university/professionals)
• X (Twitter): ~18%
• Reddit: ~14%
• Nextdoor: ~7% (limited footprint)

Behavioral trends to know

• Community-first Facebook: Heavy use of Groups and Marketplace (local news, school and sports updates, church/charity events, buy/sell/trade). Practical posts and clear CTAs outperform polished brand creative.
• Video how-tos dominate: YouTube used for DIY, farming/land management, auto repair, home projects; short-form clips (Reels/TikTok) perform when localized and personable.
• Youth/college effect: Ashland University presence lifts Snapchat/Instagram/TikTok during the academic year; engagement dips in summer.
• Event-driven peaks: Weather alerts, high school sports, fairs/festivals, and local government topics drive rapid spikes and high share rates in Facebook Groups.
• Trust and locality: Content featuring recognizable local people/landmarks, straightforward offers, and community benefits earns more comments and DMs than generic ads.
• Messaging responsiveness: Quick replies via Facebook/Instagram DM materially improve conversion for service and retail inquiries.
• LinkedIn niche: Concentrated among healthcare, education, and commuters; best for hiring and professional updates, not broad awareness.

Method note

• Built from: ACS/American Community Survey age/sex mix for Ashland County and Pew Research Center’s 2023–2024 U.S. social media adoption by age/platform, with rural adjustments. For campaign-critical precision, validate with a short local survey or platform audience estimates.