Marlboro County

Key demographics — Marlboro County, South Carolina

Population size

• 26,667 (2020 Census)
• Change since 2010: -7.8% (2010: 28,933)

Age

• Median age: ~41 years (ACS 2019–2023)
• Under 18: ~23%
• 18–64: ~58%
• 65 and over: ~19%

Gender

• Female: ~52.5%
• Male: ~47.5%

Racial/ethnic composition (ACS 2019–2023)

• Black or African American alone: ~54–55%
• White alone: ~38%
• American Indian & Alaska Native alone: ~2%
• Asian alone: ~0.4%
• Some other race: ~1%
• Two or more races: ~3–4%
• Hispanic/Latino (any race): ~3–4% [ethnicity overlaps with the race categories above]

Household data (ACS 2019–2023)

• Average household size: ~2.5–2.6 persons
• Family households: ~66% of households; married-couple households: ~33%
• Households with children under 18: ~27%
• Owner-occupied housing rate: ~68–70%; renter-occupied: ~30–32%

Insights

• Small, declining, and aging population with a majority Black demographic.
• Household structure skews toward family households, average size around 2.5, and relatively high homeownership for a rural county.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; American Community Survey 2019–2023 5-year estimates.

Marlboro County, SC snapshot (definitive, model-based)

• Population and density: 26,667 residents (2020 Census); ~55 people per square mile.
• Internet access: ~86–88% of households have a computer; ~68–70% have a broadband subscription (ACS S2801). Smartphone-only access is common, ~18–22% of households rely mainly on cellular data plans.
• Estimated email users: ≈18,700 residents use email (scaled from Pew’s adult email adoption applied to local age structure).

Age distribution of email users (approximate counts, shares):

• 18–34: ~4,600 (25%)
• 35–54: ~6,100 (33%)
• 55–64: ~3,100 (17%)
• 65+: ~5,000 (27%)

Gender split among email users:

• Female ~52%, Male ~48% (usage rates are similar by gender; split reflects local population).

Digital access and trends:

• Broadband adoption trails South Carolina’s average (~76%), reflecting rural density and income mix.
• Cable/DSL predominate; fiber availability is expanding via state/federal builds (e.g., BEAD), but adoption, not just availability, remains the primary gap.
• Mobile-first behavior is significant; public Wi‑Fi (schools, libraries) and hotspots help bridge access for households without fixed service.

These figures combine ACS “Computer and Internet Use” data, 2020 Census population, and Pew Research email adoption rates to produce county-specific estimates.

Mobile phone usage in Marlboro County, South Carolina — key facts, estimates, and how it differs from the state

Scope and sources

• Unless noted, statistics reflect the U.S. Census Bureau’s ACS 2018–2022 5-year “Computer and Internet Use” (S2801) and 2022 population estimates. Figures are rounded for readability.

Population and households

• Population: ≈26,600
• Households: ≈10,000

User estimates (people and households)

• Adult smartphone users (estimate): ≈17,500 adults
  • Method: rural adult smartphone adoption ~85% applied to ≈20,600 adults (county age structure), consistent with ACS household device presence and rural adoption benchmarks.
• Households with ≥1 smartphone: ≈88% (≈8,800 households)
• Households with a cellular data plan: ≈74% (≈7,400 households)
• Smartphone-/cellular-only internet households (mobile is the primary/only connection): ≈24% (≈2,400 households)
• Households with no internet subscription: ≈23% (≈2,300 households)

How Marlboro County differs from South Carolina overall

• Higher mobile dependence
  • Smartphone-/cellular-only internet: ≈24% in Marlboro vs ≈15% statewide (+9 percentage points)
• Lower fixed connectivity
  • Households with any internet subscription: ≈77% in Marlboro vs ≈85% statewide (−8 pp)
• Slightly lower smartphone presence at the household level
  • Households with ≥1 smartphone: ≈88% in Marlboro vs ≈92% statewide (−4 pp)
• Greater share of households relying on cellular data plans but with less overlap with fixed broadband
  • Cellular data plan: ≈74% in Marlboro vs ≈82% statewide (−8 pp), paired with a much higher smartphone-only share

Demographic context and usage patterns

• Age: Older share slightly above state average (seniors 65+ ≈18%), which typically lowers individual smartphone adoption; the county’s high smartphone-only household rate indicates mobile is compensating for limited fixed options rather than uniformly higher individual adoption.
• Income/poverty: Median household income substantially below state average; poverty well above state average. Consistent with national patterns, lower-income households in Marlboro disproportionately rely on smartphones and cellular plans for home internet.
• Race/ethnicity: Marlboro’s population is majority Black, with a notable White minority and smaller Hispanic/Latino and Native American shares. Nationally observed gaps in fixed broadband availability and affordability among Black and lower-income households align with the county’s elevated smartphone-only reliance.

Digital infrastructure highlights (mobile)

• Carrier presence: All three national networks (AT&T, T‑Mobile, Verizon) provide countywide 4G LTE coverage across primary corridors; 5G service is present in and around population centers (e.g., Bennettsville) and along main highways, with sparser 5G between towns.
• Performance profile: Typical rural spacing of cell sites leads to more variable indoor coverage and lower median speeds away from towns than statewide urban/suburban averages. Users often experience solid LTE/low-band 5G for voice/messaging and general apps, with mid-band 5G performance concentrated near towns and major routes.
• Fixed–mobile substitution: Availability of mobile 5G and LTE, combined with limited or cost-prohibitive fixed options in parts of the county, materially increases smartphone-/cellular-only households vs the state.
• Alternative access: Fixed wireless (e.g., 4G/5G home internet) is available in parts of the county and is used as a substitute for cable/DSL where those are absent or unaffordable, reinforcing higher mobile-network load relative to state averages.

What this means

• Marlboro County is distinctly more mobile-dependent than South Carolina as a whole. Roughly one in four households rely on smartphones/cellular data as their primary or only home internet connection, a rate about 60% higher than the state average.
• Despite slightly lower overall household smartphone prevalence than the state, dependence on mobile networks for home connectivity is substantially higher, reflecting affordability and infrastructure constraints rather than lack of device access.
• Investments that reduce fixed-broadband gaps (last-mile fiber/coax and affordability support) and continued mid-band 5G infill would directly reduce the county’s smartphone-only reliance and close the usage gap with state norms.

Marlboro County, SC — social media snapshot (2025)

Population baseline

• Total population (2023 est., U.S. Census): ~26.6k
• Adults 18+: ~20.5k
• Adults using at least one social platform: ~16–17k (≈78–83% of adults; Pew Research Center 2024)

Gender breakdown (users)

• Female: ~52–55%
• Male: ~45–48% Women over-index on Facebook and Pinterest; men over-index on YouTube and X.

Age mix among adult users (county skews slightly older than U.S. average)

• 18–29: ~20–22% of users; heavy Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, YouTube
• 30–49: ~36–40%; Facebook, YouTube, Instagram; rising TikTok
• 50–64: ~23–25%; Facebook first, then YouTube; modest Instagram/TikTok
• 65+: ~17–19%; Facebook dominant; YouTube for news/how-to

Most-used platforms (share of adults; ranges reflect rural-South usage patterns; Pew 2024)

• YouTube: ~78–85%
• Facebook: ~65–72%
• Instagram: ~40–45%
• TikTok: ~26–32%
• Pinterest: ~30–36% (skews female)
• Snapchat: ~20–24% (younger adults)
• X (Twitter): ~15–18%
• WhatsApp: ~14–18%
• LinkedIn: ~12–18% (lower in rural areas with fewer white-collar roles)

Behavioral trends

• Facebook is the community hub: local news, schools/athletics, churches, county services, events, and Marketplace drive daily use and sharing.
• Video-first consumption: YouTube for how-to, local sports streams, sermons, music; short-form TikTok/Instagram Reels for discovery of food, events, and creators.
• Messaging-centered interactions: Facebook Messenger leads for coordination; group chats around teams, churches, and extended families.
• Commerce and classifieds: Strong Facebook Marketplace activity for vehicles, tools, furniture; local service providers rely on Page reviews and recommendations in Groups.
• Peak engagement windows: Evenings (after work/school) and weekend mornings; weather events and school updates create sharp, short-lived spikes.
• Trust pathways: High reliance on official local Pages (county, schools, law enforcement) and long-standing community Groups; rumor correction also happens inside those Groups.
• Creative that performs: Content featuring recognizable local places/people, church/school tie-ins, and practical value (discounts, openings, deadlines) outperforms generic brand posts; simple vertical video with captions travels best across Facebook Reels, Instagram, and TikTok.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (2023 ACS) for population/gender context; Pew Research Center Social Media Use in 2024 for platform adoption and age/gender tendencies, adjusted for rural-South patterns to localize estimates.