Grant County

Key demographics for Grant County, Oklahoma (most recent Census/ACS):

• Population

  • 2020 Census: 4,592
  • 2019–2023 ACS estimate: ~4,470

• Age

  • Median age: ~46.5 years
  • Under 18: ~22%
  • 18–64: ~57%
  • 65 and over: ~21%

• Gender

  • Male: ~51%
  • Female: ~49%

• Race and ethnicity (shares of total population)

  • White, non-Hispanic: ~84.5%
  • Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~7.8%
  • American Indian/Alaska Native, non-Hispanic: ~4.0%
  • Two or more races, non-Hispanic: ~3.0%
  • Black, non-Hispanic: ~0.4%
  • Asian, non-Hispanic: ~0.3%

• Households and housing

  • Households: ~1,980
  • Average household size: ~2.27
  • Family households: ~64% (married-couple ~54%)
  • Nonfamily households: ~36% (single-person ~30%)
  • Owner-occupied housing: ~79%

Insights: Grant County is small, older than the U.S. overall, and predominantly White with a modest Hispanic population. Household sizes are small and homeownership is high, consistent with rural Great Plains counties.

Grant County, Oklahoma (pop. ≈4,300; ≈1,000 sq mi) is sparsely populated at about 4.3 residents per square mile, which shapes its connectivity and digital habits.

• Estimated email users: ≈3,050 residents use email regularly. Estimate based on local age mix (≈23% under 18; ≈24% 65+) and typical U.S. adoption rates (13–17: ~70%; 18–64: ~92%; 65+: ~75%).
• Age distribution of email users: 13–17 ≈6%; 18–44 ≈36%; 45–64 ≈32%; 65+ ≈26%.
• Gender split of users: ~51% female, ~49% male, mirroring the county’s overall sex ratio.
• Digital access trends:
  • About 73% of households have a home broadband subscription and about 87% have a computer (ACS 2018–2022).
  • Roughly 14% rely primarily on smartphone-only internet at home.
  • Email adoption among older adults is rising as mobile access improves, while overall usage is mature and stable among working-age residents.
• Local connectivity context: Low population density and long distances between premises limit wireline build-out outside town centers (e.g., Medford, Pond Creek, Wakita). Adoption and speeds are strongest in town cores; remote farm and ranch areas more often depend on mobile and satellite links.

Summary of mobile phone usage in Grant County, Oklahoma (latest available public datasets through 2022–2023; county-scale figures reflect ACS 5‑year and FCC mobile availability data)

Overall user base and adoption (modeled from ACS device/connection indicators for small rural OK counties with similar profiles)

• Residents: approximately 4,500; households: about 2,000.
• Active smartphone users: roughly 3,000–3,400 adults, implying smartphone adoption in the 80–90% range among adults. This trails metro Oklahoma but is broadly in line with rural counties.
• Mobile-only internet households (no fixed home broadband, rely on cellular data plans): estimated 14–20% in Grant County, several points higher than the statewide share. This is the standout difference versus Oklahoma overall.
• Households with no internet subscription of any kind: estimated 15–20%, above the Oklahoma average. Where fixed service is absent or unaffordable, residents lean on smartphones plus data add‑ons and hotspots.

Demographic patterns that shape usage

• Older population: Grant County has a larger share of residents aged 65+ than Oklahoma overall. Smartphone ownership and heavy-app usage are lower in this group, pulling down the countywide average and increasing reliance on voice/SMS and basic apps.
• Income and education: Lower median household income and lower postsecondary attainment than the state average correlate with:
  • Higher use of prepaid plans and MVNOs
  • More data-capped plans
  • Higher likelihood of mobile-only connectivity in place of a home broadband subscription
• Household composition: More single-adult and senior households than the state mix, which typically correspond to fewer devices per household and simpler plan tiers.

Digital infrastructure and network experience

• Carrier presence: AT&T and Verizon provide the most consistent LTE coverage countywide; T‑Mobile’s low‑band 5G/LTE is present but tends to cluster along primary corridors and town centers. Regional carriers/MVNOs ride these networks.
• 5G availability: Predominantly low‑band 5G with wide reach but modest capacity; mid‑band 5G capacity sites are sparse compared with Oklahoma’s metros and major highways. Users commonly see LTE fallback indoors and at section-line roads away from towns.
• Capacity and speeds: Typical rural performance patterns apply—good outdoor coverage with variable indoor penetration. Median downlink speeds tend to trail Oklahoma’s metro benchmarks due to lower site density and fewer mid‑band carriers.
• Tower density and backhaul: Fewer macro sites per square mile than state average and longer inter-site distances. Microwave backhaul remains important outside town centers, which can constrain peak-hour throughput.
• Emergency communications: Public-safety 4G/5G (FirstNet on AT&T) coverage is prioritized along highways and in towns; off‑highway coverage is serviceable but less redundant than in urban counties.
• Fixed broadband interplay: Fiber and cable footprints are limited outside towns, so mobile networks shoulder more of the everyday internet load (workarounds include smartphone hotspots and LTE/5G home internet). This elevates peak-time congestion compared with state averages.

How Grant County differs from Oklahoma overall

• Higher dependence on cellular as a primary home internet connection (mobile-only households notably above the state share).
• Lower average smartphone and app-intensive usage among seniors due to an older population mix.
• More variability in indoor service and lower median mobile speeds because of sparser tower density and limited mid‑band 5G, while statewide figures are boosted by Oklahoma City/Tulsa deployments.
• Greater prevalence of prepaid/MVNO plans and data-capped usage patterns relative to the statewide mix.

Practical implications

• For residents: Expect solid outdoor coverage and dependable voice/SMS; plan selection should emphasize low‑band 5G/LTE coverage, Wi‑Fi calling support for indoors, and adequate hotspot data if substituting for home broadband.
• For providers and policymakers: The biggest gains will come from adding mid‑band 5G carriers on existing sites, targeted infill near population clusters, and accelerating last‑mile fiber where feasible; these steps would narrow the usage and performance gap with the state’s urban counties.

Grant County, Oklahoma — social media usage snapshot (2025)

Context

• Population: 4,592 (2020 Census, U.S. Census Bureau). Rural, older-leaning age structure relative to the U.S. average.

Overall penetration (adults)

• Any social platform (monthly): ~70–75% of adults
• Daily social users: ~55–60% of adults Note: Modeled from 2024 Pew Research Center U.S. social usage with rural adjustments typical of small Oklahoma counties.

Most-used platforms (share of adults using each at least monthly; modeled local estimates)

• YouTube: ~80–85%
• Facebook: ~70–75%
• Instagram: ~35–40%
• TikTok: ~25–30%
• Snapchat: ~25–30%
• Pinterest: ~30–35%
• LinkedIn: ~20–25%
• X (Twitter): ~15–20%
• Reddit: ~15–20%
• WhatsApp: ~15–20%
• Nextdoor: ~10–15%

Age-group usage patterns (share of adults in each group using platforms; modeled)

• Ages 18–29: Very high overall social use (85–90%). Top: YouTube (95%), Instagram (75–80%), Snapchat (65–70%), TikTok (60–65%), Facebook (~60–70%).
• Ages 30–49: High overall (80–85%). Top: YouTube (90%), Facebook (70–80%), Instagram (50–60%), TikTok (35–40%), Snapchat (25–30%), LinkedIn (30–35%), Pinterest (~40–45%).
• Ages 50–64: Moderate–high (70–75%). Top: Facebook (65–75%), YouTube (70–80%); secondary: Pinterest (35–40%), Instagram (30–35%), TikTok (~15–20%).
• Ages 65+: Majority use at least one platform (50–55%). Top: Facebook (45–55%), YouTube (50–60%); limited Instagram/TikTok (<20%).

Gender breakdown (adult usage tendencies; modeled from national patterns applied locally)

• Overall user base is roughly balanced by gender.
• Skews by platform:
  • More women: Facebook, Instagram (slight), Pinterest (strong), Snapchat (slight), TikTok (slight).
  • More men: YouTube (slight), LinkedIn (slight), X/Twitter (moderate), Reddit (strong).
• Practical split among local users (approximate):
  • Facebook: ~55–60% women
  • Pinterest: ~70–75% women
  • Instagram/Snapchat/TikTok: ~52–58% women
  • YouTube/LinkedIn/X/Reddit: ~55–65% men

Behavioral trends observed in similar rural Oklahoma counties (applicable to Grant County)

• Community-first usage: Heavy reliance on Facebook Groups, Pages, and Marketplace for local news, school sports, civic updates, church and community events, obituaries, and buy/sell/trade. Messenger is the default DM channel; Snapchat is prevalent among under-30s for messaging.
• Video-forward consumption: Short-form video (YouTube Shorts, Facebook/Instagram Reels) is growing fastest; YouTube remains the go-to for how-to, repairs, ag/ranch content, and streaming.
• Shopping and services: Strong engagement with local business posts, promotions, and classifieds; Facebook Marketplace is a primary local commerce hub.
• News and weather: Facebook Pages/Groups and YouTube local creators/meteorologists are key for severe weather, road conditions, and harvest/market chatter.
• Time-of-day patterns: Peaks before work/school (6–8 a.m.), mid-day (11 a.m.–1 p.m.), and evenings (7–10 p.m.). Weekend morning spikes for events and Marketplace.
• Device mix: Mobile-dominant; older users show above-average desktop use for Facebook/YouTube.
• Advertising receptivity: Best performance for clear local ties (geo, schools, churches, fairs), service-oriented offers, and video/shorts; weaker response to generic national creatives. Facebook and YouTube deliver the broadest paid reach; Instagram Stories/Reels and Snapchat ads reach younger adults.

Sources and method

• Population: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census.
• Usage estimates: Pew Research Center, Social Media Use in 2024 (with rural-market adjustments to reflect small-county Oklahoma patterns). Figures are modeled local estimates where county-specific platform data are not directly published.