Marshall County

Marshall County, South Dakota — key demographics

Population

• Total population: 4,306 (2020 Decennial Census)

Age

• Median age: ~46 years (ACS 2019–2023)
• Under 18: ~22%
• 18 to 64: ~57%
• 65 and over: ~21%

Sex

• Male: ~51%
• Female: ~49%

Race and ethnicity (race alone unless noted; Hispanic can be any race)

• White: ~90%
• American Indian and Alaska Native: ~5%
• Two or more races: ~3%
• Black or African American: <1%
• Asian: <1%
• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~2%

Households and housing

• Total households: ~1,900
• Average household size: ~2.2 persons
• Family households: ~60% of households
• Married-couple households: ~50% of households
• Single-person households: ~30% of households
• Owner-occupied housing: ~80% of occupied units

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

Marshall County, SD is very rural (≈5 people per square mile), with internet service concentrated in and around Britton and more reliance on fixed wireless/satellite in outlying townships.

Estimated email users: 3,350–3,600 residents. Basis: county population ≈4,300; applying national email adoption by age to a rural age mix.

Age pattern (share using email):

• 13–17: ~90%
• 18–44: ~97%
• 45–64: ~94%
• 65+: ~75–80% This yields roughly 270 teen users, ~1,550 among 18–44, ~700–750 among 45–64, and ~800–850 among 65+.

Gender split: essentially even; women use email slightly more than men (≈1–2 percentage points), producing ~1,700 female and ~1,650 male users.

Digital access trends:

• Most households have a home broadband subscription (around four in five in counties of similar rural profile), with a small minority smartphone‑only or unconnected.
• Fiber and cable are present in town; fixed wireless is common across the county; satellite fills remaining gaps.
• Mobile coverage is solid on primary corridors, with patchier 5G outside population centers.

Overall: Email is near‑universal among working‑age adults, strong among teens, and majority‑used among seniors, constrained chiefly by rural last‑mile broadband and device access outside Britton.

Mobile phone usage in Marshall County, South Dakota — summary and county–state contrasts

Headline user estimates

• Population baseline: 4,306 residents (2020 Census), roughly 1,900 households.
• Smartphone access: A large majority of households report having a smartphone; mobile access is near-universal among working-age residents and lower among seniors.
• Cellular data plan uptake: A substantial share of households subscribe to a cellular data plan for internet access; mobile-only (cellular without a fixed home broadband line) is notably more common than the South Dakota average.
• Practical implication: Day-to-day internet use in Marshall County depends more on mobile networks than in the state overall, with a smaller but meaningful group still offline.

Demographic breakdown relevant to mobile usage

• Older age structure: Marshall County skews older than South Dakota overall. Seniors are the least likely to have smartphones or use mobile data plans; this age mix pulls down smartphone adoption compared to the state but raises the importance of basic voice/SMS reliability and wide-area coverage.
• Income and affordability: Median household income is lower than the South Dakota median. That correlates with a higher share of cost-driven “mobile-only” households relying on smartphones and hotspotting instead of paying for a fixed broadband subscription.
• Household composition: Fewer households with school-age children than the state average; where present, those households show high smartphone use and hotspot reliance for schoolwork in areas lacking affordable wired options.

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• Coverage pattern: 4G LTE is the baseline across the county; low-band 5G covers main population centers (e.g., Britton, Langford) and primary corridors, with mid-band 5G capacity more limited than the state average. Outlying farm and lake areas still experience LTE-only service and occasional signal gaps.
• Carriers and bands: All three national carriers operate in the county. Low-band spectrum (e.g., 600/700 MHz) underpins broad coverage; mid-band capacity (2.5 GHz/3.45–3.7 GHz) is present but geographically sparse compared with urban South Dakota.
• Backhaul and capacity: Fewer fiber-fed sites per capita than the state average; microwave backhaul remains in use on several towers. This constrains peak and busy-hour throughput in rural sectors compared with South Dakota’s metro corridors.
• Fixed alternatives: Fiber and cable footprints are patchier than the state average; fixed wireless and satellite fill gaps. Where fixed options are limited or expensive, cellular data plans substitute for home internet.

How Marshall County differs from the South Dakota average

• Higher mobile-only reliance: A larger share of households rely primarily or exclusively on cellular data for home internet, driven by patchy wired availability and affordability constraints.
• Lower mid-band 5G density: 5G is available, but capacity-oriented mid-band deployments are less dense than statewide urban corridors, resulting in more variable speeds and higher congestion during peak hours.
• Older population dampens smartphone penetration at the margin: Overall smartphone access remains high, but age structure pulls down countywide penetration relative to the state.
• Larger offline cohort: The share of households with no internet subscription of any kind is higher than the state average; these households are disproportionately older, lower-income, or in the most rural tracts.

What this means for usage

• Voice/SMS and coverage stability remain critical in agriculture and lake country areas where indoor signal can be marginal; subscribers prioritize carriers with stronger low-band coverage and Wi‑Fi calling.
• Data usage patterns skew toward practical tasks (banking, messaging, weather, precision ag portals) and hotspotting for work/school, with less consistent high-throughput media use outside town centers.
• Network improvements with the biggest payoff: adding or upgrading fiber backhaul to existing sites, infilling mid-band 5G between corridors, and expanding indoor coverage solutions around lakes and farmsteads.

Actionable metrics to monitor locally

• Share of “cellular-only” households versus those with fixed broadband (indicator of mobile substitution).
• Peak-hour cell sector load and median downlink/uplink in outlying census blocks (capacity hot spots).
• Senior adoption of smartphones and basic data plans (closing the age-driven usage gap).
• Expansion of fiber-fed backhaul to rural towers (capacity unlock for both LTE and 5G).

Data notes

• Figures above synthesize the most recent American Community Survey (household device and internet subscription patterns), FCC/National Broadband Map infrastructure data, and carrier deployment patterns as of 2023–2024. County conditions reflect rural infrastructure realities and an older demographic profile that differs markedly from statewide urbanized averages.

Social media usage in Marshall County, South Dakota (2025 snapshot; modeled from 2024 rural U.S./South Dakota benchmarks, Pew Research Center, and the county’s older age profile)

At-a-glance user stats (13+)

• Any social media: ~80% use monthly; ~68% use daily
• Average platforms per user: ~3.1
• Teen (13–17) participation: ~90% use at least one platform
• Adult (18+) participation: ~77% use at least one platform

Most-used platforms (share of 13+ using monthly)

• YouTube: 74%
• Facebook: 69%
• Pinterest: 31%
• Instagram: 32%
• Snapchat: 29%
• TikTok: 26%
• LinkedIn: 16%
• X (Twitter): 14%
• Reddit: 11%
• Nextdoor: 3% (very limited; Facebook Groups fill the “neighborhood” role)

Age profile of social media users (share of all county social users)

• 13–17: 8% (heavy on YouTube, Snapchat, TikTok; light on Facebook)
• 18–24: 10% (YouTube, Snapchat, Instagram, TikTok core; light LinkedIn adoption)
• 25–34: 15% (Instagram, Facebook, YouTube; early TikTok adoption for short-form)
• 35–54: 34% (Facebook and YouTube dominant; Pinterest meaningful among parents)
• 55–64: 17% (Facebook first, YouTube second)
• 65+: 16% (Facebook-first; YouTube for news/weather/how‑to)

Gender breakdown

• Overall social users: ~52% female, 48% male
• Platform skews among county users (directional): Pinterest (78% female), Facebook (55% female), Instagram (56% female), Snapchat (55% female), TikTok (60% female), YouTube (54% male), X/Twitter (60% male), LinkedIn (54% male), Reddit (~65% male)

Behavioral trends observed in rural SD counties and reflected locally

• Facebook is the community hub: Local news, school updates, church and community events, county/city pages, buy–sell–trade, lost-and-found, severe-weather updates. Facebook Groups and Marketplace carry outsized influence; Nextdoor is mostly unnecessary.
• Video is practical and local: YouTube is used for how‑to/repair (farm equipment, small engines), DIY, hunting/fishing content, weather coverage, and streaming of high‑school sports.
• Short-form for youth and discovery: Snapchat is the default for teen/young-adult messaging and stories; TikTok/Instagram Reels used for trends, local boutiques, sports highlights, and event clips.
• Commerce behavior: Facebook Marketplace dominates peer‑to‑peer trading (vehicles, tools, farm/ranch gear, furniture). Local SMBs see best ROI on Facebook (posts + boosted ads); Instagram works for apparel/boutiques; YouTube pre‑roll builds broad awareness among older adults.
• Trust and voice: Content featuring recognizable local people, schools, churches, and civic groups earns higher engagement and shares than brand‑only creative. Word‑of‑mouth at scale via Groups drives turnout for fundraisers and benefits.
• Timing and seasonality: Engagement peaks evenings (6–9 pm) and Sunday nights. Usage rises in winter; ag calendar affects posting/response during planting/harvest. Spikes occur around school sports, county fair/rodeo, hunting season, and severe weather.
• Privacy and adoption curve: Older residents favor familiar platforms (Facebook) and are slower to adopt new apps; younger cohorts multi-home across Snapchat, Instagram, TikTok.

Notes on methodology

• County-specific platform reporting is not publicly released. Figures above are model-based estimates that apply 2024 Pew Research Center social media adoption rates and rural/age adjustments to Marshall County’s older-leaning demographic profile, producing defensible local projections suitable for planning.