Crawford County

Here are core demographics for Crawford County, Pennsylvania.

Population size

• 83,938 (2020 Census)

Age

• Median age: ~43.7 years
• Under 18: ~20.8%
• 65 and over: ~21.3%

Gender

• Female: ~50.6%
• Male: ~49.4%

Race/ethnicity

• White alone: ~92.9%
• Black or African American alone: ~2.1%
• American Indian/Alaska Native alone: ~0.3%
• Asian alone: ~0.5%
• Two or more races: ~3.7%
• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~1.9%

Households

• Number of households: ~33,900
• Average household size: ~2.33 persons
• Family households: ~61% (of households)
• Married-couple households: ~47% (of households)

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census (population count) and 2018–2022 American Community Survey 5-year estimates (age, gender, race/ethnicity, and household measures).

Crawford County, PA email usage (estimates)

• Estimated users: 60–65k residents use email (about 72–78% of all residents), derived from ~92% of adults and ~80% of teens using email.
• Age adoption rates:
  • 13–17: 80–85%
  • 18–29: 95–98%
  • 30–49: 96–98%
  • 50–64: 90–95%
  • 65+: 80–90%
• Gender split: Roughly even (about 49% male, 51% female among users; usage differences are within 1–2 percentage points).
• Digital access trends:
  • Household broadband subscription: ~82–86%.
  • Computer access: ~87–92% of households.
  • Smartphone-only internet: ~12–18% of households; many check email primarily on phones.
  • Public Wi‑Fi (libraries, schools, cafes) remains an access point for some residents.
• Local density/connectivity facts:
  • Population ≈83,000; area ≈1,000 sq. miles; density ≈80 people/sq. mile (largely rural).
  • Broadband is strongest in and around Meadville and Titusville; coverage is spottier in rural townships, creating last‑mile gaps.
  • Ongoing fiber builds and state/federal programs (e.g., BEAD) are expanding high‑speed coverage.

Notes: Figures are estimates based on applying national/state benchmarks (Pew Research, ACS, FCC) to Crawford County’s population and rural profile.

Here’s a county-focused snapshot that emphasizes how Crawford County differs from Pennsylvania overall. Figures are best-available estimates drawing on ACS, FCC, Pew, CTIA, and operator coverage disclosures as of 2023–2024; where county-specific data are sparse, ranges and directional indicators are provided.

High-level context

• Population: ~83,000 (older and more rural than the state average; Meadville is the primary hub).
• Households: ~33,000.
• Rural density, lake/recreation areas (Conneaut Lake, Pymatuning), and valleys create patchier radio coverage than in most PA metros.

User estimates

• Adult mobile users (any mobile phone): 90–92% of adults → roughly 61,000–63,000 users.
• Adult smartphone users: 82–85% of adults → roughly 56,000–58,000 users.
• Households with at least one smartphone: 88–91% → about 29,000–30,000 households.
• Smartphone-only internet households (no home broadband, rely on cellular): 14–18% → about 4,500–6,000 households.
• Prepaid/MVNO share of mobile lines: 30–35% (notably higher than state average).

How Crawford County differs from Pennsylvania overall

• Adoption levels: Overall smartphone adoption runs 4–7 percentage points lower than the statewide rate, largely due to an older age structure and lower incomes.
• Smartphone-only reliance: 3–6 points higher than PA, reflecting patchy wireline availability outside towns and the loss of ACP subsidies in 2024.
• Plan mix: Prepaid/MVNO usage materially higher than the state average (cost sensitivity and retail availability, e.g., Walmart-based MVNOs).
• Network experience: More LTE/low-band 5G usage and fewer mid-band 5G zones than statewide; median mobile speeds lower and more variable with terrain.
• Access technology mix at home: Higher shares of fixed wireless access (FWA) and satellite than PA overall; fiber availability remains limited outside select pockets.

Demographic breakdown (directional, county vs state)

• Age:
  • 18–34: Near-parity with PA (≈95–98% smartphone adoption).
  • 35–64: Slightly lower than PA (≈88–92%).
  • 65+: Noticeably lower than PA (≈68–75% in-county vs low 80s statewide).
• Income:
  • < $35k: 75–80% smartphone adoption (below PA by several points); higher smartphone-only reliance.
  • $35k–$75k: Upper 80s to low 90s; cost drives prepaid and MVNO uptake.
  • $75k+: Mid- to high-90s, similar to PA.
• Education:
  • High school or less: 78–82% smartphone adoption (below PA).
  • Some college/BA+: Low- to mid-90s (near PA).
• Geography:
  • Town centers (Meadville, Titusville, Linesville, Saegertown, Cambridge Springs): Higher adoption, postpaid penetration, better indoor 5G.
  • Outlying/rural townships: More feature phones among seniors, more prepaid, higher smartphone-only or FWA reliance.

Digital infrastructure and performance

• Mobile coverage
  • Verizon: Generally the strongest rural footprint; mid-band 5G concentrated near Meadville/I-79 and major corridors; rural areas often LTE/low-band 5G.
  • AT&T: Solid highway/town coverage; Band 14/FirstNet helps public-safety and fringe areas but still varied indoors in rural valleys.
  • T-Mobile: Good 2.5 GHz 5G in/around Meadville and along I-79/US-322; coverage becomes patchier west/north of the main corridors.
  • Dead zones/weak areas: Forested and lake-adjacent zones (e.g., around Pymatuning and some valleys) show more call drops and low data rates than state averages.
• 5G availability and speeds
  • Towns/corridors: 5G mid-band yields typical 100–300 Mbps down (higher at times); uploads commonly 10–35 Mbps.
  • Rural stretches: LTE/low-band 5G more common, with 5–40 Mbps down and 2–10 Mbps up; latency 30–60 ms; deeper indoor penetration issues in older buildings.
• Tower/backhaul
  • Tower density is lower than state average; macro sites and co-locations dominate. Fiber backhaul follows interstates and state routes; microwave persists in rural segments, contributing to variability.
• Home internet mix (affects smartphone-only behavior)
  • Cable: Available in towns (Armstrong/Spectrum territories), delivering stable home Wi‑Fi offload for most in-town users.
  • DSL: Frontier-served rural areas have legacy copper with lower speeds, pushing some households to smartphone-only or FWA.
  • Fiber: Limited pockets; not yet a countywide factor.
  • Fixed Wireless Access (Verizon/T‑Mobile): Broad availability in/near towns and along corridors; estimated 6–10% of households (≈2,000–3,000) now use FWA—higher share than PA overall.
  • Satellite (e.g., Starlink): Used by a noticeable minority in fringe locations; likely 1–2% of households, above PA average.
• Public/anchor connectivity
  • Schools, libraries (Meadville, Titusville), and municipal buildings provide public Wi‑Fi that supplements mobile data, especially for students and lower-income residents.
• Seasonal effects
  • Summer recreation around Conneaut Lake and Pymatuning brings transient congestion spikes unlike most PA metros.

What this means for planning and outreach

• Messaging and service design should consider higher senior share, higher prepaid, and more smartphone-only households than PA overall.
• Reliability (voice/SMS) and indoor coverage improvements in rural pockets will impact satisfaction more than sheer peak speeds.
• FWA and affordable plan options can move the needle more in Crawford than in urban PA counties with robust fiber.

Data notes and sources

• Population and households: U.S. Census/ACS.
• Device adoption and smartphone-only: ACS S2801 (Computer and Internet Use), Pew Research (state/national baselines), synthesized to county with demographic adjustment.
• Coverage and 5G: FCC coverage disclosures, carrier maps, third-party speed/agglomerated test data (e.g., Ookla, M-Lab) for directional performance.
• Market mix: CTIA and MVNO market reports adjusted for rural demographics; local retail channel presence.

Here’s a concise, directional snapshot of social media use in Crawford County, PA. Note: precise county-level social metrics aren’t publicly reported; figures below are estimates based on Pew Research Center’s 2024 U.S. platform adoption, adjusted for a rural/older-skewing county.

Quick size and reach

• Population: ~84,000; adults (18+): ~66,000–68,000
• Estimated adult social media users: ~45,000–50,000 (≈68–74% penetration)
• Including teens (13–17): total social users likely ~52,000–57,000

Most-used platforms (share of adults; estimated)

• YouTube: 75–80% (broadest reach across ages)
• Facebook: 60–65% (dominant for local groups, events, Marketplace)
• Instagram: 35–45% (skews under 35)
• TikTok: 25–35% (fast-growing; strongest under 30)
• Snapchat: 25–35% (teens/young adults)
• Pinterest: 25–30% (stronger among women 30–55)
• X/Twitter: 12–18% (news/sports watchers)
• LinkedIn: 15–20% (smaller professional base)
• Reddit: 12–18% (younger male skew)
• Nextdoor: 5–10% (limited to denser neighborhoods)

Age-group patterns (estimated penetration within group)

• Teens 13–17: YouTube 95%+, Snapchat 70–80%, TikTok 70–80%, Instagram 60–70%, Facebook 25–35%
• Ages 18–29: YouTube 90%+, Instagram 70–80%, TikTok 60–70%, Snapchat 60–70%, Facebook 45–55%, Reddit 30–40%
• Ages 30–49: YouTube 85–90%, Facebook 70–75%, Instagram 45–55%, TikTok 30–40%, Pinterest 35–45%
• Ages 50–64: YouTube 75–80%, Facebook 65–70%, Pinterest 25–35%, Instagram 25–35%, TikTok 15–25%
• Ages 65+: Facebook 55–60%, YouTube 55–65%, Instagram 15–20%, TikTok 8–12%

Gender tendencies (adults; estimated)

• Women: Facebook 65–70%, Instagram 40–45%, Pinterest 35–40%, TikTok 30–35%, YouTube 75–80%
• Men: YouTube 80–85%, Facebook 55–60%, Instagram 35–40%, TikTok 25–30%, Reddit 18–22%, X 15–20%

Behavioral trends seen locally

• Facebook is the community hub: heavy use of local Groups (news, school closures, lost-and-found, buy/sell), Marketplace, and event announcements (fairs, parades, sports).
• Event- and season-driven spikes: high school sports, hunting/fishing seasons, winter weather alerts, festivals; posts with local pride, kids/pets, and lake/outdoor scenery perform well.
• Video consumption: YouTube for DIY, small-engine/home repair, church services, and public meetings; sub–60-second clips perform best on Facebook/Instagram/TikTok.
• Messaging habits: Facebook Messenger is a primary inquiry channel for local businesses; younger users also on Snapchat/Instagram DMs.
• Trust and discovery: recommendations in community groups often outperform brand pages; UGC and testimonials carry weight.
• Timing: engagement peaks evenings (7–10 pm) and weekends; older adults show midday activity.
• Targeting tips: strongest geo around Meadville, Titusville, Conneaut Lake, Saegertown, Cambridge Springs; interests like outdoors/hunting, home improvement, youth sports; creative featuring real locals and clear calls to message or visit.

Method note

• Estimates derived from national platform adoption (Pew Research Center, 2024) with modest adjustments for a rural, older-leaning county profile. Use as directional planning inputs; validate with your page insights, ad platform audience estimates, and local group analytics where possible.