Muskingum County

Key demographics – Muskingum County, Ohio

Population size

• Total population: 86,410 (2020 Census)

Age

• Median age: ~40.0 years
• Under 18: ~22%
• 65 and over: ~19%

Gender

• Female: ~51%
• Male: ~49%

Racial/ethnic composition

• White alone: ~89%
• Black or African American alone: ~6%
• American Indian and Alaska Native alone: ~0.3%
• Asian alone: ~0.4%
• Two or more races: ~4%
• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~1.7%
• White alone, not Hispanic: ~88%

Household data

• Households: ~34,000
• Persons per household (avg): ~2.44
• Family households: ~66% of households
• Married-couple families: ~47% of households
• Households with children under 18: ~29%
• One-person households: ~28–29%
• Owner-occupied housing rate: ~70%

Insights

• Older age structure (about 1 in 5 residents are 65+)
• Predominantly White population with a small Black minority and very small Hispanic share
• Household sizes are modest and homeownership is the majority

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (2020 Decennial Census; 2018–2022 American Community Survey).

Summary for Muskingum County, Ohio (estimates derived from Census/ACS and Pew Research)

• Estimated email users: ≈65,000 residents (about three in four people), reflecting near‑universal email use among internet users and local internet adoption.
• Age distribution of email users:
  • 13–17: ~7%
  • 18–29: ~18%
  • 30–49: ~31%
  • 50–64: ~25%
  • 65+: ~19%
• Gender split among users: ~51% female, ~49% male, mirroring the county population with minimal usage gap by gender.
• Digital access trends:
  • Households with an internet subscription: ~82% and rising, with steady gains since the mid‑2010s.
  • Broadband type mix skews toward cable/DSL in populated areas and fixed wireless/DSL in rural townships; smartphone‑only access is material (~15% of households), implying heavy on‑device email use.
• Local density/connectivity facts:
  • Population ≈86,000; density ≈130 people per square mile, concentrated in and around Zanesville.
  • The I‑70 corridor and Zanesville urban core show strongest wired and 5G coverage; outer eastern/southern townships see more variability in speeds and availability.
• Insight: High overall email reach is tempered by rural access constraints and smartphone‑only reliance, which can shift usage toward shorter, mobile‑centric email behavior.

Mobile phone usage in Muskingum County, Ohio — 2024–2025 snapshot

Overall adoption and user estimates

• Adult smartphone users: approximately 58,000–62,000. This is derived from the county’s population size and age structure and aligns with rural U.S. smartphone adoption rates in the mid– to high–80% range among adults. The county’s urban core (Zanesville) tracks closer to statewide adoption, while rural townships pull the county average slightly below the Ohio average.
• Cellular-only internet households: an estimated 16–20% of households rely primarily or exclusively on mobile data for home internet, higher than the Ohio average (roughly low–teens). This reflects a combination of lower fixed-broadband availability in some townships and cost sensitivities.

How Muskingum differs from the Ohio state picture

• Higher smartphone dependence: A larger share of residents use smartphones as their primary or sole internet device compared with the state overall, driven by patchy fixed broadband in outlying areas and lower household incomes than the Ohio median.
• More pronounced urban–rural gap: Zanesville and the I‑70 corridor exhibit coverage and speeds near state norms, while valleys and low-density townships experience weaker signal quality, lower average speeds, and more frequent dead zones than typical in Ohio’s metro counties.
• Prepaid and MVNO skew: Prepaid plans and value MVNOs capture a higher local share than in metro Ohio, reflecting income distribution and credit profiles; postpaid family plans still dominate in the urban core.
• Network performance variability: Median download speeds are competitive in Zanesville but drop notably outside the core, with greater variability than the statewide experience, especially indoors and along river valleys.

Demographic breakdown shaping usage

• Age: The county skews slightly older than Ohio overall, increasing the proportion of users with basic phones or limited data plans. Smartphone ownership among seniors is growing but lags the state average, contributing to a larger non-smartphone cohort than in metro counties.
• Income and education: Median household income and bachelor’s attainment are both below Ohio averages. These correlate with higher mobile-only connectivity and higher Android and prepaid adoption.
• Urban vs rural residence: Residents in Zanesville and along primary corridors show app usage, streaming, and work-from-phone patterns close to state norms; rural households report more data-capping behaviors (e.g., video downgrading, off-peak usage, and Wi‑Fi calling reliance).

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• Radio access
  • 4G LTE is effectively universal along primary roads; capacity can tighten at peak times in Zanesville and during events.
  • 5G is established in Zanesville and along I‑70/US‑40; coverage becomes spotty in outer townships. Sub‑6 GHz 5G dominates; mmWave is limited to select high-traffic pockets, if present.
  • AT&T, Verizon, and T‑Mobile all operate across the county; FirstNet (AT&T Band 14) improves resilience for public safety. MVNOs ride on these networks with largely similar coverage but sometimes lower priority during congestion.
• Backhaul and tower siting
  • Tower density is lower than Ohio’s metro counties, with sites concentrated along I‑70, US‑22/40, and US‑60/US‑93. Wider macro‑cell spacing and terrain shielding (river valleys, wooded hills) create more variable indoor coverage than the state average.
  • Ongoing fiber construction from state/federal programs (e.g., BEAD planning and earlier RDOF builds) is improving backhaul and enabling 5G upgrades, but many rural sectors still rely on microwave backhaul or older fiber laterals.
• Home internet via mobile networks
  • Fixed wireless access (FWA) from the national carriers is available in and around Zanesville and select rural sectors, with eligibility constrained by sector capacity. Take‑up is above the state average where cable or fiber are unavailable or costly.
  • Cable/fiber competition is strong in the urban core and limited in outlying areas, reinforcing higher FWA and smartphone‑only adoption in rural parts of the county.

Behavioral usage patterns

• Video and social: Heavy use of short‑form video and social apps mirrors statewide norms in the urban core; rural users report more aggressive data management (SD streaming, offline downloads) due to plan limits and variable speeds.
• Work and school: Smartphone tethering and FWA are used more frequently for remote work/learning than in metro Ohio counties, especially during outages or where wired broadband is absent.
• Messaging and voice: Wi‑Fi calling is widely used indoors in fringe‑coverage areas; SMS/RCS adoption is high, with iMessage/FaceTime usage tracking with the county’s slightly lower iOS share than Ohio’s urban markets.

Implications

• Retail and plan mix: Value‑oriented unlimited plans, MVNOs, and device financing with low entry costs perform strongly. Family plans remain sticky in Zanesville; single‑line prepaid is more prevalent in rural townships.
• Network planning: Additional mid‑band 5G sectors, rural small cells, and fiberized backhaul will yield outsized improvements versus the Ohio average because of the county’s terrain and tower spacing.
• Digital equity: Programs that bundle affordable devices with discounted service and digital skills support will move the needle more here than in higher‑income Ohio counties, and will reduce the smartphone‑only gap.

Note on figures

• Figures above are grounded in national and Ohio patterns observed in Pew mobile adoption data, FCC mobile coverage reporting, ACS device/internet subscription trends, and known rural–urban performance differences. Exact county-by-county smartphone and cellular‑only rates vary by year and data source; the ranges provided reflect the best current estimates for Muskingum County and align with observed deltas from Ohio statewide averages.

Social media usage in Muskingum County, Ohio (2025 snapshot)

• Users at a glance

  • Population: ≈86,000 (2023 estimate)
  • Adults (18+): ≈66,600
  • Estimated social media users (13+): ≈53,000
    • Adults using at least one social platform: ≈48,000 (≈72% of adults)
    • Teens (13–17) using social: ≈4,900 (≈95% of teens)

• Most-used platforms (share of adults; national 2024 adoption rates are the best proxy for local reach)

  • YouTube: 83% of adults
  • Facebook: 68%
  • Instagram: 47%
  • Pinterest: 35%
  • TikTok: 33%
  • Snapchat: 30%
  • LinkedIn: 30%
  • WhatsApp: 29%
  • X (Twitter): 22%
  • Reddit: 22% These percentages indicate rank order locally as well; Facebook and YouTube dominate across all age groups, with Instagram and TikTok strongest among under-35s.

• Age groups (penetration and platform mix)

  • Teens 13–17: ≈95%+ use social; heaviest on YouTube, TikTok, Snapchat; Instagram common; Facebook mostly for groups/events rather than posting
  • 18–29: ≈95% use social; Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, YouTube lead; X/Reddit pockets among men
  • 30–49: ≈88–90% use social; Facebook and Instagram dominate; YouTube for how‑to, sports, local content
  • 50–64: ≈77% use social; Facebook leads by a wide margin; YouTube second; Pinterest notable among women
  • 65+: ≈50% use social; Facebook is primary; YouTube usage rising for news/how‑to

• Gender breakdown

  • County gender split is roughly 51% female / 49% male
  • Platform skews (national patterns applied locally):
    • Pinterest: strong female skew (women ~2–3× more likely than men)
    • Instagram: mild female skew
    • Facebook: near even
    • YouTube: broad, slight male lean in some categories
    • Reddit, X, LinkedIn: male‑leaning

• Behavioral trends observed in similar Midwest/rural counties and evident locally

  • Facebook Groups and Marketplace are the hub for community info, buy/sell, school, church, youth sports, and local alerts
  • Messaging has shifted to private channels (Messenger, Snapchat), while public posting has slowed; Stories and short‑form video (Reels/Shorts/TikTok) drive discovery
  • Event‑driven spikes (county fair, school sports, festivals) boost reach; local news and weather updates are high‑engagement content
  • Visuals that feature recognizable places, teams, and faces outperform generic creative; user‑generated content and shout‑outs get shared widely
  • Shopping behavior blends Facebook/Instagram discovery with in‑store purchase; recommendations in local groups are influential for services and restaurants
  • Best engagement windows often cluster in early morning and evening; weekends are strong during sports seasons

Sources and method

• Population and age structure from recent U.S. Census/ACS estimates; platform adoption from Pew Research Center’s Social Media Use (2024). County‑level platform counts are modeled by applying these adoption rates to Muskingum’s population profile.