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.

Other Counties in Texas