Clay County

Here are concise, data-driven snapshots for Clay County, Texas. Figures are from the U.S. Census Bureau (2020 Decennial Census; 2018–2022 American Community Survey 5-year estimates).

Population

• Total population: ~10,200 (2020 Census)

Age

• Median age: ~44 years
• Under 18: ~22%
• 65 and over: ~20%

Gender

• Female: ~49–50%
• Male: ~50–51%

Race and Hispanic origin (shares of total population)

• White, non-Hispanic: ~85%
• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~9–10%
• Black or African American: ~1–2%
• American Indian/Alaska Native: ~1–2%
• Asian: <1%
• Two or more races: ~3–4%

Households and housing

• Households: ~4,100
• Average household size: ~2.5
• Family households: ~68–70% of households
• Households with children under 18: ~25–30%
• Homeownership rate: ~82–84%

Economic (household-level)

• Median household income: roughly $60k–$65k
• Persons in poverty: ~11–13%

If you need exact point estimates with margins of error and citations, say which year (e.g., 2020 Census vs. 2018–2022 ACS) you prefer.

Clay County, TX snapshot (population ~10.2k):

• Estimated email users: ~7.2k–8.1k (about 70–80% of residents), reflecting high adult adoption and lower use among the youngest and oldest residents.

Age mix of email users (approx. share):

• 13–17: 6–8%
• 18–34: 22–25%
• 35–54: 32–36%
• 55–64: 16–18%
• 65+: 18–22%

Gender split:

• Roughly even; ~49% male, ~51% female among email users (mirrors county demographics).

Digital access trends:

• Household internet and device ownership are widespread but trail Texas urban averages.
• Broadband is improving via fiber and fixed‑wireless buildouts supported by state/federal programs (e.g., BEAD/RDOF); many outside towns still rely on mobile data or satellite.
• Public Wi‑Fi (libraries/schools/county facilities, especially in Henrietta and Petrolia) supplements home access.

Local density/connectivity context:

• Very rural: ~9–10 people per square mile across ~1,100 sq mi, with residents concentrated in Henrietta (county seat) and small towns along US‑287/US‑82.
• Stronger cellular coverage follows these corridors; gaps persist in outlying ranchlands, which can dampen consistent email access for a minority of households.

Mobile phone usage in Clay County, Texas — planning snapshot (focus on differences vs. Texas overall)

Quick context

• Rural county in North Texas with a small, older population centered on Henrietta and small communities along the US‑287/US‑82 corridor. Population roughly 10–11k; about 4–4.5k households.

User estimates (planning-level, rounded)

• Adult smartphone users: 6.7k–7.1k (about 80–85% of adults). This is a bit lower than Texas overall (≈88–90%) due to an older age profile and more coverage gaps outside corridors.
• Total smartphone users including teens: roughly 7.2k–7.7k.
• Wireless‑only households (no landline): 60–65% of households (TX ≈70%+). Older residents keep landlines at higher rates than the state average.
• Smartphone‑dependent internet (people who rely mainly on a phone for internet): 24–28% of adults, likely above the Texas average (~18–22%), reflecting limited, uneven fixed broadband.
• Prepaid share of mobile lines: estimated 40–50% (TX closer to ~30–40%), driven by lower incomes, credit constraints, and MVNO availability.

Demographic breakdown (patterns that matter for adoption and use)

• Age:
  • 18–34: near‑universal smartphone adoption (≈95%+), heavy app/social/video use similar to state.
  • 35–64: high adoption (≈85–90%), but more mixed plan types; many use phones as hotspot substitutes when home internet is weak.
  • 65+: noticeably lower adoption (≈60–70%), higher feature‑phone retention and landline use than Texas overall.
• Income: Lower‑income and fixed‑income households rely more on prepaid/MVNO plans and are overrepresented among smartphone‑only internet users.
• Geography within the county:
  • Henrietta and the US‑287/US‑82 corridor have stronger 4G/5G and higher adoption of data‑heavy use.
  • Outlying ranch and river‑bottom areas see more signal variability; users there are more likely to keep landlines, use signal boosters, or mix carriers in households.
• Race/ethnicity: The county is predominantly non‑Hispanic White with a smaller Hispanic population than Texas overall; where Hispanic households are present, smartphone‑only internet reliance tends to be above the county average (similar to statewide patterns among lower‑income households).

Digital infrastructure highlights

• Coverage and technology mix:
  • 4G LTE is strong along US‑287/US‑82 and in Henrietta, Petrolia, and other small towns; patchier in sparsely populated areas and near river valleys.
  • 5G low‑band is present along major corridors; mid‑band 5G (capacity 5G) is limited outside the Wichita Falls influence area. Expect more LTE fallback than in Texas metros.
• Carriers (practical experience in rural terrain):
  • Verizon generally most consistent off‑corridor; AT&T strong on corridors and public‑safety sites (FirstNet Band 14 present on key macros); T‑Mobile good in towns/corridors but weaker off‑grid. Households sometimes mix carriers to cover dead zones.
• Capacity/speeds (typical, not guaranteed):
  • Along corridors and in Henrietta: often tens to 100+ Mbps on mid‑band‑equipped sites; elsewhere, single‑digit to tens of Mbps with occasional dead spots.
  • Peak‑time slowdowns are more noticeable than in metro Texas because there are fewer sectors and less mid‑band spectrum deployed.
• Backhaul and sites:
  • Macro sites cluster along US‑287/US‑82 with fiber backhaul; outlying sites are more likely to rely on microwave, which can constrain capacity.
  • mmWave 5G is not a factor; fixed wireless (licensed/unlicensed) from WISPs fills coverage gaps and influences smartphone‑only behavior.
• Interaction with fixed broadband:
  • Cable and fiber are limited; DSL and WISP coverage are common. Where fixed service is weak/absent, residents use mobile hotspots or rely solely on phones.
• Public safety:
  • FirstNet coverage along the main corridor is generally good, but responders still report spotty coverage in river bottoms and low‑lying ranch areas.

How Clay County differs from Texas overall (the key trends)

• Slightly lower overall smartphone adoption, driven by an older population and more coverage gaps.
• Higher reliance on smartphones as primary internet (smartphone‑only) because fixed broadband is less available/consistent than in metro Texas.
• Lower share of wireless‑only households than Texas overall, because seniors retain landlines at higher rates.
• More LTE‑heavy experience and less mid‑band 5G capacity than state averages; median mobile speeds are lower and more variable.
• Higher prepaid/MVNO usage share; more households mix carriers or keep signal boosters due to terrain and tower spacing.
• Carrier balance differs: Verizon/AT&T tend to outperform T‑Mobile outside towns, opposite of many Texas metros where T‑Mobile mid‑band dominates.

Notes on method and recency

• Estimates synthesize 2020–2023 Census/ACS population and household counts, Pew smartphone adoption trends, FCC coverage maps, state rural/urban deltas, and rural carrier deployment patterns in North Texas through 2024. Use these as planning‑level figures; local drive testing and current carrier maps should be consulted before operational decisions.

Below is a concise, best-available estimate for social media usage in Clay County, TX. County-level platform stats aren’t formally published, so figures combine Pew Research Center adoption rates with a small, older-leaning rural demographic profile like Clay County’s (≈10K residents).

Headline user stats

• Estimated total social media users: 6.2K–6.6K residents
  • Adults (18+): ~5.6K–5.9K users (about 69–72% of adults)
  • Teens (13–17): ~0.6K users (about 90–95% of teens)
• Device and access: Predominantly mobile; connectivity constraints in rural areas shape “off-peak” usage and heavier reliance on Facebook/Messenger.

Age profile of users (share of the local social audience)

• Under 30: ~25–30%
• 30–49: ~30–35%
• 50–64: ~20–25%
• 65+: ~15–20% Note: Older adults are a larger share of the county than the U.S. average, but lower adoption in 65+ keeps their slice of the social audience smaller than their population share.

Gender breakdown (of active users)

• Women: ~52–55%
• Men: ~45–48% Platform skew: Facebook and Instagram lean slightly female; Pinterest strongly female; Reddit and X (Twitter) lean male.

Most-used platforms (share of adults; county-adjusted ranges)

• YouTube: ~75–85%
• Facebook: ~60–70% (dominant for community life, local info)
• Instagram: ~30–40%
• TikTok: ~20–30% overall; 60–70% among teens/young adults
• Snapchat: ~15–25% overall; 60–70% among teens/college-age
• X (Twitter): ~12–18%
• Reddit: ~8–12%
• WhatsApp: ~8–12% (lower in predominantly non-immigrant rural counties)
• Nextdoor: ~2–5% (many residents use Facebook Groups instead)
• Facebook Messenger is widely used for 1:1 and group messaging

Behavioral trends to know

• Community hub effect: Facebook Groups are the de facto town square (school sports, church events, buy/sell/trade, lost-and-found, road and weather updates). Local admins and word-of-mouth drive trust.
• Marketplace-first shopping: Heavy use of Facebook Marketplace for local deals, vehicles, farm/ranch equipment, home services.
• Video for utility: YouTube for how‑to, ag and ranch, hunting/fishing, equipment repair; Facebook Reels/YouTube Shorts/TikTok for quick local highlights.
• Youth split: Teens/early 20s favor TikTok/Snapchat/Instagram; they consume more than they post to public feeds, using DMs/Stories for day-to-day interaction.
• Timing: Engagement peaks early morning (before work/school) and evenings (7–10 pm), plus weather and sports-driven spikes; weekends see Marketplace and event planning activity.
• Content that performs: Local faces and places, high school sports, severe weather alerts, road closures, community spotlights, local business promos with clear offers.
• Messaging > links: For local businesses and services, click-to-message and phone call objectives convert better than sending to slow-loading sites; geotargeting within ~15–25 miles is typical.
• Moderation matters: Rumor control in local groups is important; posts with verified info from local officials or well-known community members gain faster traction.

Method notes

• Adoption rates from Pew Research Center (2023–2024). Rural adults typically show slightly lower adoption than urban/suburban.
• Age/gender skews mirror rural Texas patterns and platform-specific demographics.
• Figures are estimates; for campaign planning, validate with platform ad audience tools (geo-target Clay County) and local group membership counts.