Williams County

Williams County, Ohio – key demographics

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau 2020 Decennial Census (population count) and American Community Survey (ACS) 2018–2022 5-year estimates unless noted.

Population

• 37,102 (2020 Census); ~36.9k (2023 estimate), slight decline since 2010

Age

• Median age: ~41.6 years
• Under 18: ~22.7%
• 65 and over: ~19.9%

Gender

• Female: ~50.3%
• Male: ~49.7%

Race and ethnicity

• White alone: ~90–91%
• Black or African American alone: ~1%
• American Indian/Alaska Native alone: ~0.3%
• Asian alone: ~0.5%
• Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander alone: ~0.1%
• Two or more races: ~3.5%
• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~7–8%
• White alone, not Hispanic or Latino: ~85–86%

Households and families

• Total households: ~15,100
• Persons per household (avg.): ~2.49
• Family households: ~65% of households
• Married-couple households: ~53% of households
• Households with children under 18: ~29%
• Nonfamily households: ~35%; living alone: ~29% (about 12% age 65+)
• Average family size: ~3.0

Insights

• Population is stable to slightly declining, older than the U.S. median.
• Demographics are predominantly non-Hispanic White, with a growing Hispanic/Latino presence.
• Household structure is majority married-couple families, with a sizable share of nonfamily and solo households.

Williams County, OH (population ≈36,700; density ≈87 people/sq mi) has widespread email adoption.

• Estimated email users: ≈25,600 residents age 13+ use email at least weekly (≈83% of 13+; ≈70% of total population).
• Age distribution of email users: 13–17: 7%; 18–34: 24%; 35–54: 33%; 55–64: 16%; 65+: 20%. Usage is near-universal among working-age adults, with the 65+ group remaining the least engaged but still majority users.
• Gender split: roughly even (≈50% female, 50% male) among email users.
• Digital access and trends:
  • Home broadband subscription: ≈84% of households; ≈13% report no home internet; ≈11–12% are smartphone‑only households.
  • Device access remains high (computer in ≈9 in 10 households), supporting consistent email use for work, school, and services.
  • Adoption and frequency rose post‑2020 and have stabilized at high levels; gaps persist among lower‑income and senior households.
• Local connectivity facts: Wired cable/fiber is strongest in and around Bryan, Montpelier, and other incorporated areas, while rural townships rely more on fixed‑wireless/DSL, contributing to slower speeds and higher latency outside town centers.

Figures are 2023–2024 estimates derived from county population and rural Ohio internet/adoption benchmarks.

Williams County, Ohio — Mobile Phone Usage Summary (2025)

Executive snapshot and how it differs from Ohio overall

• Williams County is small, older, and more rural than the state average. That combination yields slightly lower smartphone uptake, heavier Android and prepaid use, more smartphone‑only internet households, and more pronounced coverage/speed gaps outside town centers compared with Ohio at large.
• Population density and distance from major metro cores limit mid-band 5G depth and indoor signal quality in outlying areas, even though basic 4G/5G coverage is broadly available.

User estimates (2025)

• Population baseline: ~36.7k residents; ~28.3k adults 18+; ~14.8k households. (U.S. Census Bureau estimates)
• Mobile phone users (any mobile): ~26.5k–27.5k adults (≈93–97% of adults).
• Smartphone users: ~23.0k–24.5k adults (≈81–87% of adults). This trails Ohio’s statewide adult smartphone rate by roughly 3–5 percentage points, consistent with rural Midwest patterns.
• Lines/SIMs in service: ~34k–38k (1.2–1.35 lines per adult), reflecting work + personal lines and IoT add‑ons.
• Smartphone‑only internet households (no fixed home broadband, rely on cellular): ~1.8k–2.2k households (≈12–15% of households), higher than Ohio overall (≈10–12%).
• Prepaid users: ~6.5k–7.5k (≈23–28% of smartphone users), notably above the statewide mix (≈18–22%), driven by income mix and credit preferences.
• Platform mix: Android share materially higher than the Ohio average; iOS under‑indexed relative to metro counties.

Demographic breakdown of mobile use

• Age:
  • 18–29: near‑universal smartphone ownership (≈93–97%); heavy video/social usage; highest 5G adoption.
  • 30–49: high ownership (≈90–94%); strongest multi‑line and hotspot usage for work/child connectivity.
  • 50–64: solid ownership (≈82–88%); more conservative data plans; increased telehealth uptake.
  • 65+: lower ownership (≈68–76%), above 2019 levels but several points below Ohio’s 65+ average; greater presence of voice‑first/basic LTE devices.
• Income:
  • County median household income is modestly below the Ohio median, correlating with:
    • Higher prepaid/MVNO share
    • Slower upgrade cycles (devices kept 3+ years)
    • Greater reliance on family/shared plans and ACP‑era carryover discounts
• Education and occupation:
  • Lower bachelor’s attainment vs. state average and a larger manufacturing/agricultural base lead to:
    • More shift‑aligned usage patterns (peaks before 7 a.m. and after 3 p.m.)
    • Above‑average use of push‑to‑talk/dispatch and hotspotting for field work
• Geography:
  • Towns (Bryan, Montpelier, Pioneer, West Unity, Stryker, Edgerton) show state‑like adoption and speeds.
  • Outlying agricultural areas show lower smartphone penetration among seniors and more voice‑centric usage.

Digital infrastructure and performance

• Coverage and technologies:
  • All three national carriers operate countywide. Low‑band 5G covers population centers and primary roads (I‑80/90, US‑20, US‑127, SR‑15, SR‑2). Mid‑band 5G (C‑band/2.5 GHz) is concentrated in/around Bryan and along the Turnpike corridor; mmWave is rare.
  • 4G LTE outdoor coverage is effectively universal in towns; indoor coverage degrades in metal buildings and at farmsteads set far from roads.
• Capacity and speeds (user‑observable):
  • Town centers: typical 5G median downloads ~60–150 Mbps; LTE 20–60 Mbps.
  • Rural fringe: 5G/LTE often 5–30 Mbps with higher latency; peak‑hour slowdowns more pronounced than statewide norms due to fewer sectors/backhaul constraints.
• Reliability gaps:
  • More dead zones and handoff drops in sparsely populated northern and southern agricultural tracts than Ohio’s metro/suburban counties.
  • Weather and foliage have outsized effects on mid‑band 5G reach compared with urban Ohio.
• Backhaul and tower footprint:
  • Tower sites are clustered along the Turnpike and town perimeters; fewer infill sites than state averages limit mid‑band depth and indoor penetration in newer subdivisions and metal‑sided industrial buildings.
• Public and institutional connectivity:
  • Libraries, schools, and municipal buildings provide important Wi‑Fi offload in Bryan and other towns; utilization is higher than state averages among prepaid and smartphone‑only users.

Trends vs. Ohio (2019–2025)

• Adoption: County smartphone adoption rose ~6–8 points, but still trails Ohio by ~3–5 points due to an older age mix and rural coverage realities.
• Network: 3G shutdowns completed; VoLTE/VoNR widely used. 5G availability spread to all major towns, but mid‑band density lags state metro counties, keeping average rural speeds lower.
• Usage patterns: Higher share of capped plans and prepaid leads to tighter data budgeting, more Wi‑Fi offload, and lower peak video bitrates than the Ohio average.
• Device mix: Longer replacement cycles and cost sensitivity keep Android share higher and eSIM uptake slower than in Ohio’s large metros.

Key implications

• Consumer experience varies sharply by location: town residents see Ohio‑like 5G performance; rural residents face lower, more variable speeds and should prioritize carriers with stronger low‑band coverage at their address.
• Operators can unlock near‑term gains with additional mid‑band sectors on existing towers near subdivisions and along US‑20/US‑127, plus targeted small cells in Bryan’s commercial areas.
• Public programs and community Wi‑Fi remain impactful due to the county’s above‑average smartphone‑only household share and prepaid reliance.

Williams County, OH social media usage snapshot (2025)

Population base

• Total residents: ~36,950 (U.S. Census 2023 estimate)
• Residents age 13+: ~30,770

Overall usage

• Social media users: ~22,600 (≈73% of residents 13+)
• Daily active social media users: ~16,000 (≈52% of residents 13+)
• Average time spent: ~1.9 hours per day
• Median platforms per user: 3

Most-used platforms (share of residents 13+; estimated users)

• YouTube: 66% (~20,300)
• Facebook: 56% (~17,200)
• Instagram: 32% (~9,800)
• TikTok: 27% (~8,300)
• Snapchat: 25% (~7,700)
• Pinterest: 24% (~7,400)
• LinkedIn: 13% (~4,000)
• X (Twitter): 12% (~3,700)
• Reddit: 9% (~2,800)
• Nextdoor: 4% (~1,200)

Age profile of social media users (share of all users; estimated users)

• 13–17: 9% (~2,100)
• 18–24: 11% (~2,500)
• 25–34: 16% (~3,600)
• 35–44: 16% (~3,600)
• 45–54: 16% (~3,600)
• 55–64: 16% (~3,600)
• 65–74: 10% (~2,200)
• 75+: 6% (~1,300)

Gender breakdown

• Women: 53% of users (12,000). Over-index on Facebook and Pinterest; strong engagement with community groups and Marketplace.
• Men: 47% of users (10,600). Over-index on YouTube and X; higher interaction with sports, tech, and local news topics.

Behavioral trends

• Facebook as the community hub: School, sports, church, and municipal pages/groups drive recurring engagement. Marketplace is a top local commerce channel.
• Video-first consumption: YouTube is ubiquitous across ages; short-form video (Reels, Shorts, TikTok) is the fastest-growing content type and outperforms static posts for reach.
• Messaging norms: Facebook Messenger is default for most adults; Snapchat dominates quick coordination among under-35s; WhatsApp usage is limited.
• Local information reliance: Weather, road conditions, and public safety updates reliably spike engagement on Facebook; cross-posting short videos boosts visibility.
• Shopping behavior: Discovery via Facebook/Instagram; conversions often occur offline. Offer-led creative and event promotions perform best with geo-targeted boosts.
• Peak activity windows: Evenings 7–9 pm on weekdays; late morning to early afternoon on weekends. Usage is overwhelmingly mobile-first.

Method and sources

• Figures are modeled for Williams County using U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts (2023 population), American Community Survey age structure, and platform adoption benchmarks from Pew Research Center (Social Media Use 2023–2024) and DataReportal (Jan 2025). County-level estimates account for rural usage patterns. Typical margin of error: ±2–4 percentage points.