Bennett County

Bennett County, South Dakota — key demographics

• Population: 3,381 (2020 Census)
• Age (ACS 2018–2022): median ~31 years; under 18 ~33%; 65+ ~13–14%
• Gender (ACS 2018–2022): ~50% female, ~50% male
• Race/ethnicity (2020 Census; alone unless noted): American Indian/Alaska Native ~60–62%; White ~33–35%; Two or more races ~4–6%; Black ~<1%; Asian ~<1%; Hispanic/Latino (any race) ~3–4%
• Households (ACS 2018–2022): ~1,100 households; average household size ~3.0; majority family households; ~40–45% with children under 18

Notes: Figures rounded; ACS estimates for small counties carry margins of error.

Bennett County, SD overview (estimates)

• Population: 3,400 residents spread over ~1,190 sq mi (3 people/sq mi), making last‑mile connectivity costly and spotty outside the town of Martin.
• Estimated email users: 1,700–1,950 adult residents. Method: ~2,250–2,350 adults (assuming ~65–70% of residents are 18+), with 75–85% using email based on rural U.S. adoption benchmarks.
• Age distribution of email use (share of adults using email):
  • 18–29: ~85–90%
  • 30–49: ~85–90%
  • 50–64: ~75–85%
  • 65+: ~55–70%
• Gender split among email users: roughly even (about 49–51% either male or female; differences are typically within a few points in national/rural surveys).
• Digital access trends:
  • Home broadband adoption in similar rural/tribal counties is commonly in the 60–70% range; smartphone‑only access is notable and growing.
  • Barriers include affordability, device turnover, and coverage gaps between towns and outlying areas.
  • Public Wi‑Fi (schools, libraries, tribal/government buildings) and mobile data are important access points.
• Context: Bennett County has a large Native American population and very low density, factors associated nationwide with lower fixed‑broadband adoption but high reliance on mobile internet and practical, frequent email use for benefits, healthcare, school, and work.

Notes: Figures are best‑effort estimates combining 2020 Census population size with Pew/ACS rural adoption patterns.

Summary: Mobile phone usage in Bennett County, South Dakota (what’s different from the state)

At a glance (best-available estimates)

• Population: roughly 3,400–3,600 residents, concentrated in and around Martin, with large rural/tribal areas.
• Regular mobile users (people 12+ who own/use a mobile phone): about 2,100–2,400.
• Adult smartphone ownership: 80–88% (lower than South Dakota overall, which is closer to 90%+).
• Smartphone-only internet households (no wired home broadband, rely on mobile data/hotspots): 25–35% (notably higher than the statewide ~12–18%).
• Likely carrier share: Verizon leads (about 45–55%), AT&T/FirstNet significant (25–35%), T-Mobile meaningful in town/along highways (15–25%). Outside corridors, T-Mobile share drops. MVNOs ride these networks.
• Device mix: Android-heavy; iPhone share ~35–45% (vs SD closer to 55–60%).

What sets Bennett County apart

• More mobile-dependent for home internet: Fewer wired options and affordability constraints push many households to rely on smartphones/hotspots as their primary connection.
• Higher use of prepaid/Lifeline-style plans: Cost sensitivity and eligibility patterns on tribal and low‑income households raise prepaid and assistance-plan penetration compared with the state average.
• Coverage is spottier off the main corridors: Service is reliable in Martin and along US‑18/SD‑73, but dead zones appear quickly away from highways and population clusters; this is more pronounced than in much of the state.
• “5G” often behaves like LTE: Low‑band 5G is present, but mid‑band capacity sites are sparse, so real‑world speeds don’t differ much from LTE outside town.
• Younger, more Native population shifts patterns: A larger share of youth and Native American residents correlates with heavier messaging/social use, more shared/family plans, more Android, and above-average smartphone‑only access—distinct from the state’s older, more suburban/rural mix.

Demographic drivers of usage

• Age: A comparatively young population (higher share under 30) increases smartphone adoption and mobile-only behaviors but can lower iPhone share due to budget constraints.
• Race/ethnicity: A majority or near‑majority Native American population is associated statewide with higher mobile reliance and lower wired broadband availability on or near reservation and trust lands.
• Income and housing: Lower median incomes and more rental or multi‑family/extended households increase demand for prepaid/MVNO lines, shared data, and hotspot use; churn can be higher.
• Education and employment: School‑age use is heavy (messaging/video), while adult use often blends social, work coordination, and benefits access; home‑based businesses and ranching rely on coverage along travel routes.

Digital infrastructure and performance

• Coverage pattern:
  • Strongest near Martin, schools, clinic/hospital, and along US‑18 and SD‑73.
  • Rapid signal drop‑off into ranchland and checkerboarded trust lands; outbuildings and coulees can be shadowed.
• 5G/LTE:
  • Low‑band 5G from AT&T/FirstNet and T‑Mobile, with Verizon using DSS; mid‑band 5G (e.g., n41 or C‑band) is limited or absent outside town, so speeds commonly sit in the LTE range.
  • Typical observed ranges: rural 5–25 Mbps down on LTE/low‑band 5G; in‑town can reach 20–80 Mbps when not congested. Uploads often 2–10 Mbps; latency 50–100+ ms.
• Backhaul and capacity:
  • Tower density is low; many sites use microwave backhaul. Evening and end‑of‑month (data cap) slowdowns are common.
  • Key anchor institutions (schools, library, hospital/clinic) are on fiber or high‑capacity links; residents often offload to public Wi‑Fi there.
• Public safety and resilience:
  • FirstNet presence improves AT&T reliability near public‑safety anchors.
  • Text‑to‑911 is supported statewide. Weather/power events can take isolated sites offline; backup power varies by site.
• Alternatives:
  • Fixed wireless from regional/tribal providers fills some gaps; satellite (LEO) adoption is rising for households that can afford it, reducing but not eliminating smartphone‑only reliance.

Usage patterns on the ground

• Heavier reliance on messaging and short‑form video than on HD streaming due to coverage and data limits.
• Hotspotting for homework, telehealth, and benefits access is common; data deprioritization can disrupt video visits.
• Multi‑line family plans and shared devices are more prevalent; device turnover often follows subsidy/assistance cycles.
• iOS penetration is lower; Android’s affordability and better band support on budget devices make it dominant.

Policy and market notes

• The sunset of the federal ACP in 2024 increased cost pressure; some households downgraded plans or went smartphone‑only as a result.
• New macro sites or mid‑band upgrades along US‑18/SD‑73 would yield outsized benefits; small cells are unlikely to pencil out outside Martin.
• Programs that bundle affordable data with devices and digital skills support (through schools, library, and tribal entities) have high impact given the smartphone‑first reality.

Method note: Figures are derived from county demographics, rural/tribal adoption research, FCC coverage patterns, and statewide benchmarks. Small‑area ACS estimates carry high margins of error; therefore ranges are provided to reflect uncertainty.

Below is a concise, best-available snapshot for Bennett County, SD. Precise, public county-level social media stats don’t exist; figures are estimates based on 2020 Census population size and Pew Research Center’s 2024 findings for U.S./rural adults, which tend to track closely in rural areas of the Plains. Treat these as planning ranges, not exact measures.

Population baseline

• Total population: ~3,400
• Estimated adults (18+): ~2,000–2,200

Estimated social media users (adults)

• Share using at least one major platform: roughly 75–85% of adults
• That implies ~1,500–1,850 adult social users in the county

Most-used platforms (adult reach; expected ranges)

• YouTube: ~80–85% of adults (about 1,640–1,870 people)
• Facebook: ~65–70% (about 1,330–1,540)
• Instagram: ~45–50% (about 920–1,100)
• TikTok: ~30–35% (about 615–770)
• Pinterest: ~30–35% (about 615–770)
• Snapchat: ~25–30% (about 510–660)
• X (Twitter): ~20–25% (about 410–550)
• LinkedIn: ~15–20% (about 310–440)

Age-pattern snapshot (directional)

• Teens/18–29: Very high on TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram; YouTube is near-universal; Facebook used but less central for posting.
• Ages 30–49: Facebook and YouTube dominate (community info, groups, Marketplace); Instagram rising; TikTok used for entertainment and local creators.
• 50+: Facebook and YouTube lead; growing but still lower adoption of TikTok/Instagram; Messenger is a primary communication tool.

Gender tendencies (based on national rural patterns)

• Women over-index on Facebook and Pinterest, and slightly on Instagram.
• Men over-index on YouTube, Reddit, and X.
• Practical implication: Community/event and buy–sell content skews female engagement; how-to, sports, ag/outdoors video skews male.

Behavioral trends observed in similar rural/tribal Plains counties (likely in Bennett County)

• Community-first Facebook usage: Local groups, school sports, safety/weather/road updates, county/tribal notices, church and community events, and Buy/Sell/Trade are high-engagement.
• Messenger as default: Many residents prefer Facebook Messenger over SMS/email for quick coordination.
• Mobile-first habits: Higher smartphone dependence means short vertical video (Reels/Shorts/TikTok) and concise posts perform best; links to heavy, off-platform sites underperform.
• Video how-to culture: YouTube for DIY, ranching/farming, vehicle repair, hunting/fishing, and local-interest content.
• Marketplace utility: Facebook Marketplace is a key channel for used goods, vehicles, tools, feed, and seasonal items.
• Timing: Engagement often peaks early morning and evenings; weather events and school activities create spikes.
• Trust/voice: Posts from known community members, schools, local businesses, and tribal/county pages outperform faceless brand messages.
• Youth split: Teens rely on Snapchat for daily communication and TikTok for entertainment; they’ll see Instagram Stories but may not follow pages consistently.

Notes on methodology and uncertainty

• Percentages are derived from Pew Research Center’s 2024 social media adoption among U.S. (and rural) adults, applied to Bennett County’s adult population range. Local factors (connectivity, demographics, events) can shift these numbers up or down by several points.
• For precision (e.g., campaign planning), a quick local survey or page-insights analysis of key community groups will sharpen these estimates.