Geauga County Local Demographic Profile

Here’s a concise demographic snapshot of Geauga County, Ohio (U.S. Census Bureau, 2019–2023 ACS 5-year estimates; values rounded):

  • Population: ~95,000
  • Age:
    • Median age: ~45 years
    • Under 18: ~23%
    • 65 and over: ~21%
  • Gender:
    • Female: ~50–51%
    • Male: ~49–50%
  • Race and ethnicity:
    • White (non-Hispanic): ~92–93%
    • Black or African American: ~1–2%
    • Asian: ~1%
    • Two or more races: ~3%
    • Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~2–3%
  • Households:
    • Total households: ~36,000
    • Average household size: ~2.6–2.7
    • Family households: ~70–72% of households
    • Married-couple households: ~60% of households
    • Households with children under 18: ~30–33%

Email Usage in Geauga County

Geauga County, OH snapshot (estimates)

Population/density: ~95,400 residents (2020 Census) across ~400 sq mi ≈ 236 people/sq mi.

Email users: ~72,000 residents (about 75% of total; derived from Census age mix and Pew-like email adoption rates). That’s roughly 90%+ of adults, with lower uptake among the oldest cohorts.

Age distribution of email users (approximate share of users):

  • 13–17: 6%
  • 18–34: 22%
  • 35–54: 33%
  • 55–64: 18%
  • 65+: 22%

Gender split: Mirrors population, ~51% female / 49% male among users.

Digital access trends:

  • About 9 in 10 households have a home broadband subscription; a small single‑digit share rely on mobile‑only internet.
  • Email use is near‑universal for ages 18–64 and somewhat lower (but rising) among 65+.
  • Town centers (e.g., around the county seat, Chardon) typically have multiple high‑speed fixed options; lower‑density townships depend more on DSL or fixed wireless with more variable speeds.
  • Ongoing state/federal rural broadband investments are expanding fiber to outlying areas.

Notes: Figures are model-based estimates applying national/Ohio usage rates to Geauga’s population and age structure; exact local metrics can vary by township and provider coverage.

Mobile Phone Usage in Geauga County

Below is a planning-oriented snapshot of mobile phone usage in Geauga County, Ohio, with best-guess ranges and the drivers behind them. It emphasizes where the county differs from statewide patterns. Use this as a scoping guide and validate with the latest ACS S2801 (Devices and Internet Subscriptions), FCC Broadband Map, and independent speed/coverage datasets before final decisions.

Executive snapshot

  • Population baseline: ~95–96k residents; ~35–36k households.
  • Mobile phone users (any mobile phone): roughly 80k–86k residents (about 85–90% of total).
  • Smartphone users: roughly 70k–78k residents (about 75–82% of total).
  • Households with at least one smartphone/cellular data plan: about 30k–32k households (≈82–88%).
  • Wireless-only for home internet (smartphone/hotspot as primary): minority overall but meaningful in rural townships; expect low teens percentage in the most rural tracts and single digits to low teens countywide.

What makes Geauga County different from Ohio overall

  • Amish community impact: Geauga has a sizable Amish population compared with most Ohio counties (though smaller share than Holmes). Religious and cultural norms reduce smartphone adoption and favor limited or off-premises phone use. This pulls down countywide smartphone penetration relative to income peers and creates sharper sub-county disparities.
  • Older demographic mix: Median age is higher than the Ohio average. Older cohorts adopt smartphones at lower rates, further nudging countywide adoption slightly below what income alone would predict.
  • Higher incomes, suburban west: Western and southwestern townships (exurban Cleveland) are higher-income and commute-heavy, tending toward very high smartphone and multi-line household adoption—often on par with or above state averages. This produces a “two-speed” county: suburban west ≈ big-metro Ohio, rural east ≈ rural Ohio.
  • Infrastructure heterogeneity: 5G mid-band coverage and capacity are strong along the US-422 corridor and western townships, but LTE-only pockets and weaker indoor coverage persist in more rural and park-adjacent areas. Compared with statewide averages, Geauga shows greater within-county variance—stronger than rural Appalachian counties overall, weaker and patchier than major metros.

Demographic breakdown (drivers and expected patterns)

  • Age:
    • 18–44: near-universal smartphone use (≈90–95%+), similar to Ohio overall.
    • 45–64: high but a notch lower than younger cohorts.
    • 65+: notably lower smartphone use than state averages in suburban metros; flip/basic phones still present.
  • Income:
    • $100k+ households (common in the west): near-universal smartphones, multiple lines per household, more 5G-capable devices, and higher mobile data consumption.
    • Lower-income rural households: higher price sensitivity, more prepaid plans, and a higher likelihood of relying on a single device or using mobile as primary home internet when wired options are poor.
  • Cultural/religious patterns:
    • Amish and some conservative communities: lower adoption of smartphones and in-home devices; some business-related or communal/off-premises phone use. This is a distinctive factor vs. Ohio statewide averages.
  • Geography within the county:
    • West/southwest (Bainbridge, Chester, Russell, near 422/306/44): usage, device capability, and 5G take-up align with suburban Cleveland.
    • Middle/east/southeast (e.g., around Middlefield and rural tracts): more basic devices, more coverage variability, and a higher share of mobile-only internet households.

Digital infrastructure highlights

  • Cellular coverage and capacity:
    • 4G LTE: effectively countywide with rural gaps possible near parklands and low-density areas.
    • 5G: Mid-band 5G from national carriers is strongest along commuter corridors (US-422, OH-44/306) and population centers; rural edges may remain LTE-only or low-band 5G with limited capacity.
    • In-building coverage: Generally sound in suburban west; weaker in rural structures and larger farm/industrial buildings. Booster demand is higher outside the 422 corridor.
  • Backhaul and towers:
    • Macro towers cluster along major corridors; backhaul is best where fiber follows highways and utility routes. Rural sectors rely on longer hops or legacy copper, which can constrain sector capacity compared with metro counties in Ohio.
  • Fixed-line context that shapes mobile use:
    • Suburban west/southwest: cable and growing fiber footprints reduce the need for mobile-only home internet.
    • Rural east/southeast: more DSL legacy and patchy cable/fiber; fixed wireless ISPs present but variable. Where wired options are weaker, residents are more likely to lean on smartphone hotspots or cellular home internet plans.

How Geauga’s trends compare with Ohio statewide

  • Adoption level: Overall smartphone penetration is roughly at or slightly below the Ohio average when viewed countywide, but variance is wider inside Geauga than in most Ohio counties due to the Amish presence and rural/suburban split.
  • Technology mix: Higher share of 5G-capable devices and plans in the suburban west (comparable to Ohio’s large metros); more LTE-only service and basic phones in rural townships than the state average.
  • Mobile-only households: More prevalent than in Ohio’s metro counties but generally lower than in the state’s most infrastructure-challenged rural counties. Expect a gradient from west (low reliance) to east (higher reliance).
  • Network performance: Speeds and reliability are generally below Cleveland-area benchmarks but above many Appalachian/rural Ohio counties. Peak-time congestion can appear on rural sectors and in tourism-heavy areas.

Planning notes and data to pull next

  • Validate household device and subscription rates with ACS S2801 (most recent 1-year county estimate).
  • Map sub-county differences: combine FCC Broadband Map availability, carrier 5G/LTE layers, and third-party speed tests by census tract or block group.
  • Track carrier build plans (C-band/C-band+ and 2.5 GHz sites) along US-422 and rural gaps to forecast near-term capacity shifts.
  • Cross-tab adoption by age and income from ACS microdata or local surveys to separate the effects of age, income, and cultural factors.

Social Media Trends in Geauga County

Below is a concise, data‑informed snapshot for Geauga County, OH. Figures are estimates based on U.S. Census population baselines and Pew Research Center 2024 national platform usage, adjusted for Geauga’s older, suburban/rural profile. Use these as planning ranges, not exact counts.

Population baseline

  • Residents: ~95–97k
  • Older-than-U.S.-average age mix; implies slightly higher Facebook/YouTube use, slightly lower TikTok/Snapchat vs national.

Estimated social media users

  • Adults (18+): ~58k–64k users (≈78–84% of ~74–76k adults)
  • Teens (13–17): ~6k–8k users (≈85–95% adoption)
  • Total 13+: ~64k–72k residents use at least one platform monthly
  • Gender split of users ≈ county population (roughly 50/50)

Most‑used platforms (adults; share who use each at least monthly)

  • YouTube: ~80–85%
  • Facebook: ~70–75% (slightly above U.S. average given older skew)
  • Instagram: ~40–50%
  • Pinterest: ~30–35% (skews female)
  • LinkedIn: ~25–30%
  • Snapchat: ~25–30% (concentrated <30)
  • TikTok: ~25–30% (slightly below U.S. average)
  • X/Twitter: ~18–22%
  • WhatsApp: ~18–22%
  • Reddit: ~18–22%
  • Nextdoor: ~15–20% (not universal but meaningful for neighborhoods)

Teens (13–17) platform tendencies

  • YouTube ~90–95%; TikTok ~60–70%; Instagram ~60–70%; Snapchat ~60–70%
  • Minimal Facebook, used mainly for teams/events via parents

Age‑group patterns

  • 18–29: Instagram/TikTok/Snapchat daily; YouTube heavy; Facebook for events/Marketplace
  • 30–49: Facebook + YouTube dominant; Instagram rising; Marketplace and local groups key
  • 50–64: Facebook/YouTube primary; Pinterest/Nextdoor notable; modest TikTok
  • 65+: Facebook for family/church/community; YouTube for news/how‑to; low elsewhere

Gender tendencies (directional)

  • Women: Higher Facebook/Instagram/Pinterest use; active in school, church, and community groups; frequent sharing/recommendations
  • Men: Higher YouTube/Reddit/X; more viewing than posting; interests in sports, outdoors, autos, local gov

Behavioral trends (Geauga‑specific context)

  • Facebook Groups are the local hub: road conditions, school updates, lost pets, county fair/4‑H, youth sports, “ask for a rec” posts
  • Marketplace is a top use case (tools, furniture, farm/outdoor gear); strong weekly activity
  • Events drive spikes: county fair, festivals, school sports, severe weather; live video and photo albums perform well
  • Video‑first consumption: YouTube for how‑to and local services; Reels/TikTok growing for discovery; many conversions still happen on Facebook pages/events
  • Messaging over posting: Messenger, Snapchat, and Instagram DMs used heavily; more lurking/scrolling than public posting
  • Trust dynamics: residents often verify info with known neighbors or official pages; active group moderation
  • Peak activity windows: early morning (6–8 a.m.) and late evening (8–10 p.m.); midday mobile check‑ins on weekdays
  • Privacy: older users prefer closed groups/minimal profiles; younger users favor ephemeral/private stories
  • Civic/volunteerism: strong engagement for school/church/animal rescue fundraisers via Facebook/Instagram

Notes

  • Percentages mirror Pew Research Center’s 2024 U.S. adult platform adoption and known teen patterns, with slight adjustments for an older suburban/rural county. For campaign planning, validate with a quick audit of local groups/pages and ad platform audience estimates.