Charles Mix County

Here are key demographics for Charles Mix County, South Dakota. Figures are from the U.S. Census Bureau (2020 Census and ACS 2018–2022 5-year estimates); percentages rounded.

Population size

• Total population: 9,373 (2020 Census)
• ACS 2018–2022 estimate: ~9.4k

Age

• Median age: ~35 years
• Under 18: ~28%
• 18–64: ~55%
• 65 and over: ~17%

Gender

• Male: ~50%
• Female: ~50%

Racial/ethnic composition

• White (alone): ~56%
• American Indian & Alaska Native (alone): ~36%
• Black (alone): ~0.4%
• Asian (alone): ~0.2%
• Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (alone): ~0.1%
• Some other race: ~1.8%
• Two or more races: ~5–6%
• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~6%

Household data (ACS 2018–2022)

• Total households: ~3,400
• Average household size: ~2.7
• Family households: ~68%
• Married-couple families: ~49% of households
• Households with children under 18: ~34%
• Owner-occupied housing rate: ~69%

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census (P.L. 94-171) and ACS 2018–2022 5-year (tables DP05, S0101, S1101, DP04).

Charles Mix County, SD snapshot (estimates)

• Population base: 9.3–9.5k residents; low density (8–10 people/sq. mile). Small hubs: Wagner, Platte, Lake Andes; large rural/tribal areas (Yankton Sioux Reservation).
• Estimated email users: 7,000–7,800 (about 75–85% of residents), reflecting overall internet adoption in rural SD.
• Age mix among email users:
  • 13–24: 20–25% (near-universal school/work use)
  • 25–44: 30–35% (work and services)
  • 45–64: 25–30%
  • 65+: 15–20% (lower but rising adoption)
• Gender split: roughly even (≈49–51% female/male among users).
• Digital access/adoption:
  • Home internet subscriptions: ~75–80% of households; 15–25% lack home service or rely on shared/public access.
  • Smartphone-only internet: ~10–15% of households.
  • Connectivity is strongest in towns and along US-18/SD-50 corridors; rural/tribal areas show lower fixed-broadband take-up due to cost and infrastructure gaps.
  • Fiber builds by regional rural providers and recent state/federal grants (e.g., ReConnect/BEAD) are expanding 100+ Mbps service; mobile LTE is widespread with growing 5G in population centers.
• Trend: steady year-over-year gains in broadband availability and senior adoption; affordability and coverage on tribal/rural edges remain key constraints.

Summary: Mobile phone usage in Charles Mix County, South Dakota (2025 snapshot, estimates)

User estimates

• Population base: 9,500 residents; ~77% adults (7,300).
• Smartphone users: ~6,400–6,700 people (80–84% of adults plus most teens 13–17).
• Basic/feature-phone users: ~600–900 adults.
• Total mobile phone users (any type): ~7,000–7,600 people.
• Cell-only households (no landline): ~2,600–2,800 of ~3,600 households (about 70–75%).
• Mobile-only internet reliance: roughly 20–25% of households countywide; higher (25–35%) among Native American and lower-income households.

Demographic breakdown and how it shapes usage

• Age: Larger share of 65+ than the state average; lowers overall smartphone adoption and increases basic-phone retention and voice/SMS-first usage.
• Race/ethnicity: Substantial Native American population (Yankton Sioux Tribe). Mobile devices are more often the primary internet connection due to lower fixed-broadband availability/affordability on and near tribal lands; higher use of prepaid/MVNO plans and Wi‑Fi calling.
• Income: Median household income below state average; price sensitivity leads to smaller data plans, slower device refresh cycles, and greater churn between carriers/promotions.
• Households: More multigenerational homes increase shared devices and hotspotting to cover homework/telehealth needs.

Digital infrastructure and coverage notes

• Coverage pattern: Best along US‑18 and SD‑50 corridors and in Wagner, Lake Andes, Platte, and Pickstown/Fort Randall areas; patchier on county roads, in low-lying river/bluff terrain, and across dispersed farmsteads and tribal trust lands.
• Carriers:
  • Verizon: Generally the strongest rural LTE footprint; usable low‑band 5G in towns/highways.
  • AT&T/FirstNet: Improved public-safety coverage; good along main corridors and public facilities; some indoor gaps in outlying areas.
  • T‑Mobile: Broad low‑band 5G along highways/towns; more dead zones off‑corridor than Verizon/AT&T in remote stretches.
• 5G availability: Predominantly low‑band 5G; mid‑band 5G is limited to town centers if present at all. Many users still depend on LTE for reliable indoor service.
• Capacity/backhaul: Macro sites often backhauled by microwave with limited fiber beyond corridors, so peak-hour speeds can sag compared with the state’s metro areas.
• Fixed alternatives: Fiber/cable concentrated in town limits; WISPs and LTE/5G fixed wireless common outside towns. Where fixed options are weak, households lean on phone hotspots.
• Affordability programs: The sunset of ACP subsidies in 2024 increased cost pressure; Lifeline remains important on tribal lands, influencing plan selection and data usage.

How Charles Mix County differs from South Dakota overall

• Higher mobile-only internet dependence, especially among Native and lower-income households, versus the statewide average.
• Slightly lower overall smartphone adoption and slower device turnover due to older age mix and tighter budgets.
• Carrier mix skews toward Verizon/AT&T for rural reach and FirstNet benefits; T‑Mobile more of a secondary option off the main corridors.
• More pronounced coverage variability: reliable service in towns/highways but more dead zones off-corridor than the statewide picture suggests.
• Lower average 5G performance and availability of mid‑band spectrum than in SD’s metro counties; LTE remains the workhorse.
• Greater reliance on prepaid/MVNO plans, hotspotting, and Wi‑Fi calling to bridge affordability and coverage gaps.

Notes on method and confidence

• Figures are reasoned estimates combining county population and household counts with national/rural adoption rates (Pew Research smartphone adoption, CDC/NHIS wireless-only households) and typical rural/tribal infrastructure patterns in SD. For project-level decisions, verify with current ACS tables, FCC mobile coverage maps, carrier maps, and the SD broadband office.

Below is a concise, best-available estimate for social media use in Charles Mix County, SD. Because platform data is rarely published at the county level, figures are modeled from county demographics and recent U.S. rural/social media benchmarks (Pew Research 2023–2024; state/rural skews), then adjusted for the area’s older age mix and strong Facebook usage patterns typical of Great Plains counties. Treat as directional.

Snapshot and user stats

• Population: ~9.5K residents; residents 13+ ≈ 8.0K.
• Social media users (13+): ~5.8K–6.3K (roughly 72–79% of 13+).
• Adult users (18+): ~5.3K–5.8K (about 70–78% of adults).

Age mix of users (share of total social media users)

• 13–17: 8–10% (very high usage intensity, mainly Snapchat/TikTok/Instagram).
• 18–29: 18–22% (heavy on Instagram, TikTok, YouTube; still on Snapchat).
• 30–49: 32–38% (Facebook + YouTube core; Instagram rising).
• 50–64: 20–24% (Facebook dominant; YouTube for how‑to/news).
• 65+: 12–18% (Facebook primary; YouTube second).

Gender breakdown (of social media users)

• Female: ~51–54%
• Male: ~46–49% Notes: Women skew higher on Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest; men skew higher on YouTube, Reddit, and X.

Most‑used platforms in Charles Mix County (estimated monthly reach of residents 13+; overlapping)

• YouTube: 72–80%
• Facebook: 62–70% (highest daily use; strongest in 30+ and 65+)
• Facebook Messenger: 55–62%
• Instagram: 28–36% (strong 18–34)
• Snapchat: 24–32% (dominant among teens/younger 20s)
• TikTok: 25–33% (teens/20s; growing 30–44)
• Pinterest: 20–28% (women 25–54; home, recipes, crafts)
• X (Twitter): 8–12% (news/sports followers, mostly men 18–44)
• LinkedIn: 8–12% (lowest overall; professional niches)
• Reddit: 8–12% (younger men; hobby/tech/outdoors)
• Nextdoor: <5% (limited neighborhood coverage in rural areas)

Behavioral trends to know

• Facebook is the community hub:
  • Local news, school and sports updates, church notices, obituaries, fundraisers, buy/sell/swap, lost & found.
  • Heavy use of Groups, Pages, and Marketplace; many transactions finalized via Messenger.
• Trust and sources:
  • High engagement with local/tribal government, schools, EMS, utility/co‑op and county pages; local radio/newspaper posts perform well when shared in groups.
• Video habits:
  • YouTube for how‑to (home, ag equipment), hunting/fishing, high school sports replays, church services.
  • Short‑form video (TikTok/Instagram Reels) drives discovery among teens/20s; cross‑posting to Facebook Reels improves reach across ages.
• Timing and cadence:
  • Peaks: evenings (7–10 pm), lunch hour, and during weather events; Friday nights (sports) and Sunday mornings (services) see spikes.
• Rural connectivity realities:
  • Mobile‑first consumption; mixed broadband quality favors short clips, compressed images, and captions for sound‑off viewing.
• Culture and seasonality:
  • Strong engagement around powwows and tribal/community events, county fair, severe weather, road conditions, hunting/fishing seasons, harvest time.
• Commerce behavior:
  • Facebook Marketplace and local swap groups outperform standalone e‑commerce links; giveaways, local coupons, and event tickets earn above‑average response.
• Platform roles by age:
  • Teens: Snapchat (messaging/stories), TikTok (creation/consumption), YouTube (longer form).
  • 20s/30s: Instagram + TikTok for discovery; Facebook for community logistics.
  • 40s–65+: Facebook first; YouTube second; Pinterest popular with women.

Notes on methodology and confidence

• Based on county population structure and national/state rural platform adoption; platform percentages are estimates and overlap. Use for planning and targeting; validate with page/group insights and ad platform reach estimates for precision.