Brown County Local Demographic Profile
Here are key, current demographic indicators for Brown County, Texas.
Population
- 2020 Census (count): 38,095
- 2023 estimate: ≈38.3k (U.S. Census Bureau, Vintage 2023)
Age (ACS 2018–2022, 5-year estimates)
- Median age: ~40–41 years
- Under 18: ~23%
- 65 and over: ~21%
Gender (ACS 2018–2022)
- Female: ~50%
- Male: ~50%
Race/ethnicity (ACS 2018–2022; Hispanic can be any race)
- White alone: ~86–87%
- Black or African American alone: ~4%
- American Indian/Alaska Native alone: ~1%
- Asian alone: ~0.7–0.8%
- Two or more races: ~3–4%
- Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~20–21%
- White alone, not Hispanic or Latino: ~74–75%
Households (ACS 2018–2022)
- Total households: ~14.5–14.7k
- Persons per household (avg): ~2.4–2.5
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; American Community Survey (ACS) 2018–2022 5-year estimates; Population Estimates Program (Vintage 2023).
Email Usage in Brown County
Brown County, TX email usage (estimates)
- Population and density: ≈38,000 residents; ~40 people per square mile (rural).
- Estimated email users: 27,000–30,000 residents. Method: apply national adult email adoption (~90%+) to the county’s largely adult population, plus some teen users.
- Age distribution of email users (approximate):
- 13–17: high access via school accounts, but smaller share of total users.
- 18–34: near‑universal use (95%+); roughly 25–30% of users.
- 35–54: near‑universal use (95%+); roughly 35–40% of users.
- 55–64: very high use (90–95%); roughly 12–15% of users.
- 65+: somewhat lower but strong use (80–90%); roughly 15–20% of users.
- Gender split among users: about 50% female / 50% male, mirroring the population.
- Digital access trends:
- Household internet subscription in similar rural Texas counties is typically ~80–85%; smartphone‑only access is common (roughly 15–20%), which can constrain email use for attachments/long messages.
- Connectivity is strongest in towns (e.g., Brownwood/Early) with cable/fiber pockets; many outlying areas rely on DSL, fixed wireless, or satellite.
- Public institutions (schools, libraries, government buildings) provide important Wi‑Fi access points.
- Ongoing state/federal broadband programs are expanding fiber and fixed‑wireless coverage, gradually improving speeds and reliability.
Notes: Figures are inferred from ACS population patterns and Pew email adoption benchmarks for the U.S., adjusted to local rural context.
Mobile Phone Usage in Brown County
Summary: Mobile phone usage in Brown County, Texas (focus on what differs from statewide patterns)
At-a-glance estimates (2024)
- Population: ~38–39K; adults ~30K
- Mobile phone users (any cellphone): ~28–29K adults (about 92–95% of adults)
- Smartphone users: ~24–25K adults (about 80–85% of adults; a few points below Texas overall)
- Households: ~15–16K
- Mobile-only home internet (cellular data plan with no wired subscription): roughly 18–26% of households (about 2.8K–4.0K), noticeably higher than Texas as a whole (roughly low-teens percent)
What’s different from the Texas average
- Older age profile: Brown County’s 65+ share is several points higher than the Texas average, which suppresses smartphone adoption slightly and raises the share of basic/voice-first plans.
- Higher mobile-only reliance: Outside Brownwood/Early, limited wired options push households to rely on smartphone hotspots or dedicated LTE/5G home internet more than the state average.
- Prepaid and Android tilt: Lower median income and rural coverage patterns translate to heavier use of prepaid carriers and a higher Android share than in metro Texas counties.
- Coverage variability: Performance is more uneven than statewide—solid in town and along highways, but with noticeable slowdowns and dead zones in ranchland and lake-adjacent areas.
- Work-use skew: A larger share of lines support field work (agriculture, oilfield/service trades), driving demand for rugged devices, PTT apps, and broader-area coverage rather than ultra-fast urban 5G.
Demographic context and usage implications
- Age: Roughly 21–23% 65+, vs ~13–14% statewide. Seniors are less likely to own smartphones or to use data-heavy apps; when they do, they favor larger-screen Android devices and simple plans.
- Income/education: Below-state medians. This correlates with more price-sensitive plans, family share plans, and hotspot-based home connectivity.
- Race/ethnicity: Predominantly White non-Hispanic with a sizable Hispanic population (~20–25%). Bilingual use is common; WhatsApp and Facebook remain highly penetrated in Hispanic households for communication and community groups.
- Youth: Teen smartphone penetration is high (near statewide levels), but app spending and premium add-ons are lower; school- and sports-related messaging drives usage.
Digital infrastructure highlights
- Cellular coverage pattern:
- Town centers (Brownwood, Early, Bangs): Generally strong LTE; low-band 5G from major carriers is common. Mid-band 5G capacity is concentrated in/near town and along US-84/67 and US-377.
- Outlying areas (Cross Timbers terrain, around Lake Brownwood, ranchland): LTE remains the fallback; speeds vary widely and coverage gaps persist in low-population pockets and rugged spots.
- Carriers:
- AT&T and Verizon typically offer the most consistent rural footprint; T-Mobile coverage has expanded with low-/mid-band 5G but can drop to LTE or weaker in remote stretches.
- Fixed wireless and 5G home internet options are used as alternatives to DSL/satellite outside cable/fiber footprints.
- Wired backstop:
- In Brownwood/Early: cable and some fiber are available; these areas show more conventional “wired-first, mobile-second” usage.
- Outside town limits: DSL legacy lines, WISPs, and satellite are common—driving higher smartphone hotspot use than the Texas average.
- Public access and resilience:
- Schools, the public library, and city facilities are important Wi‑Fi anchors.
- First responder and FirstNet-oriented coverage is prioritized along main corridors; mutual-aid events still report spotty data in canyons and lakeside pockets.
Quantified estimates vs Texas
- Smartphone adoption (adults): Brown County ~80–85%; Texas overall ~85–90%.
- Mobile-only home internet: Brown County ~18–26%; Texas overall ~12–15%.
- Prepaid share of lines: Higher than state average (directional; varies by carrier and promo cycles).
- Average mobile speeds: Lower variance in town; greater variance countywide than in metro Texas due to terrain and tower spacing.
Method notes
- Estimates synthesize recent ACS-style population/household counts, national/rural mobile adoption benchmarks (e.g., Pew), and typical rural Texas infrastructure patterns. Ranges reflect uncertainty at the county level and year-to-year carrier build-outs. For planning, validate with the latest FCC maps, carrier coverage tools, and local ISP availability.
Social Media Trends in Brown County
Below is a concise, practical snapshot for Brown County, TX. Because most platforms don’t publish county-level figures, the numbers are modeled from U.S. Census population, rural-Texas patterns, and recent Pew Research Center platform-adoption rates. Treat them as directional estimates.
Headline user stats
- Population baseline: ~38K residents; ~30K adults (18+).
- Active social media users (adults): ~21K–23K (about 70–75% of adults). Including teens, total users likely ~24K–26K.
Most-used platforms (adult reach; estimated share of adults who use each)
- YouTube: 80–85%
- Facebook: 65–70%
- Instagram: 40–45%
- TikTok: 28–35%
- Snapchat: 25–30%
- Pinterest: 30–35% (skews female)
- X/Twitter: 18–22% (skews male)
- Reddit: 14–18% (skews male)
- LinkedIn: 18–22% (professionals, job-seeking)
- WhatsApp: 15–20% (higher among Hispanic households/families)
- Nextdoor: 6–10% (more active in town centers than rural outskirts)
Age patterns (who’s active where)
- Teens (13–17): Heavy on Snapchat and TikTok; YouTube is near-universal. Instagram growing; Facebook mainly for groups/family.
- 18–29: Very high on YouTube, Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok; Facebook used for events/groups, less for posting.
- 30–49: Cross-platform. Facebook and YouTube dominate; Instagram respectable; TikTok usage rising; Pinterest strong among parents/home/lifestyle.
- 50–64: Facebook and YouTube lead; Instagram modest; TikTok adoption growing for entertainment/how-to.
- 65+: Facebook (family, groups, local news) and YouTube (how-to, church/livestreams); limited use of others.
Gender breakdown (directional)
- Overall user base likely leans slightly female (about 52–55%).
- Female-leaning platforms: Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest.
- Male-leaning platforms: YouTube, Reddit, X/Twitter.
- Messaging: Facebook Messenger is universal across genders; WhatsApp more common among Hispanic users and families with out-of-area ties.
Local behavioral trends
- Community and news: Strong reliance on Facebook Groups and Pages for city/county updates, school alerts, weather/emergencies, high school sports, church activities, and local events.
- Marketplace and buy/sell/trade: Very active on Facebook; high engagement for vehicles, farm/ranch gear, furniture, and seasonal items.
- Video first: Short-form video (Reels, Shorts, TikToks) performs best for events, promotions, and local storytelling; live streams for games, services, and meetings get strong peaks.
- Trust and word-of-mouth: Recommendations in local groups drive decisions (home services, health, dining). Local admins and known community members shape sentiment.
- Timing: Peak engagement evenings (7–10 pm) and weekends; lunch-hour spikes for quick updates.
- Causes and civics: Issue-focused groups (schools, roads, utilities) activate quickly; posts with practical value (closures, outages, safety, weather) outperform opinion pieces.
- Youth habits: Direct messaging (Snapchat/Instagram DMs), TikTok for entertainment; Facebook mainly for logistics (team pages, school info).
- Small business usage: Facebook and Instagram for promos, giveaways, and events; YouTube Shorts/TikTok increasingly used for behind-the-scenes and product demos; Pinterest for seasonal/home categories.
Notes on methodology and sources
- Population: U.S. Census Bureau (Brown County ≈38K residents; ~30K adults).
- Platform adoption: Pew Research Center (2023–2024) national figures, adjusted for rural Texas patterns. County-level precision requires platform ad-planning tools (e.g., Meta Ads Manager) and local group/page analytics.
Table of Contents
Other Counties in Texas
- Anderson
- Andrews
- Angelina
- Aransas
- Archer
- Armstrong
- Atascosa
- Austin
- Bailey
- Bandera
- Bastrop
- Baylor
- Bee
- Bell
- Bexar
- Blanco
- Borden
- Bosque
- Bowie
- Brazoria
- Brazos
- Brewster
- Briscoe
- Brooks
- Burleson
- Burnet
- Caldwell
- Calhoun
- Callahan
- Cameron
- Camp
- Carson
- Cass
- Castro
- Chambers
- Cherokee
- Childress
- Clay
- Cochran
- Coke
- Coleman
- Collin
- Collingsworth
- Colorado
- Comal
- Comanche
- Concho
- Cooke
- Coryell
- Cottle
- Crane
- Crockett
- Crosby
- Culberson
- Dallam
- Dallas
- Dawson
- De Witt
- Deaf Smith
- Delta
- Denton
- Dickens
- Dimmit
- Donley
- Duval
- Eastland
- Ector
- Edwards
- El Paso
- Ellis
- Erath
- Falls
- Fannin
- Fayette
- Fisher
- Floyd
- Foard
- Fort Bend
- Franklin
- Freestone
- Frio
- Gaines
- Galveston
- Garza
- Gillespie
- Glasscock
- Goliad
- Gonzales
- Gray
- Grayson
- Gregg
- Grimes
- Guadalupe
- Hale
- Hall
- Hamilton
- Hansford
- Hardeman
- Hardin
- Harris
- Harrison
- Hartley
- Haskell
- Hays
- Hemphill
- Henderson
- Hidalgo
- Hill
- Hockley
- Hood
- Hopkins
- Houston
- Howard
- Hudspeth
- Hunt
- Hutchinson
- Irion
- Jack
- Jackson
- Jasper
- Jeff Davis
- Jefferson
- Jim Hogg
- Jim Wells
- Johnson
- Jones
- Karnes
- Kaufman
- Kendall
- Kenedy
- Kent
- Kerr
- Kimble
- King
- Kinney
- Kleberg
- Knox
- La Salle
- Lamar
- Lamb
- Lampasas
- Lavaca
- Lee
- Leon
- Liberty
- Limestone
- Lipscomb
- Live Oak
- Llano
- Loving
- Lubbock
- Lynn
- Madison
- Marion
- Martin
- Mason
- Matagorda
- Maverick
- Mcculloch
- Mclennan
- Mcmullen
- Medina
- Menard
- Midland
- Milam
- Mills
- Mitchell
- Montague
- Montgomery
- Moore
- Morris
- Motley
- Nacogdoches
- Navarro
- Newton
- Nolan
- Nueces
- Ochiltree
- Oldham
- Orange
- Palo Pinto
- Panola
- Parker
- Parmer
- Pecos
- Polk
- Potter
- Presidio
- Rains
- Randall
- Reagan
- Real
- Red River
- Reeves
- Refugio
- Roberts
- Robertson
- Rockwall
- Runnels
- Rusk
- Sabine
- San Augustine
- San Jacinto
- San Patricio
- San Saba
- Schleicher
- Scurry
- Shackelford
- Shelby
- Sherman
- Smith
- Somervell
- Starr
- Stephens
- Sterling
- Stonewall
- Sutton
- Swisher
- Tarrant
- Taylor
- Terrell
- Terry
- Throckmorton
- Titus
- Tom Green
- Travis
- Trinity
- Tyler
- Upshur
- Upton
- Uvalde
- Val Verde
- Van Zandt
- Victoria
- Walker
- Waller
- Ward
- Washington
- Webb
- Wharton
- Wheeler
- Wichita
- Wilbarger
- Willacy
- Williamson
- Wilson
- Winkler
- Wise
- Wood
- Yoakum
- Young
- Zapata
- Zavala