Cooke County Local Demographic Profile
Cooke County, Texas — key demographics (U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2018–2022 5-year estimates)
- Population: ~42–43k
- Age:
- Median age: ~39–40
- Under 18: ~24%
- 65 and over: ~17%
- Sex:
- Female: ~50–51%
- Male: ~49–50%
- Race/ethnicity (Hispanic is an ethnicity; values approximate):
- Non-Hispanic White: ~64–70%
- Hispanic/Latino (any race): ~20–25%
- Black/African American: ~3–5%
- American Indian/Alaska Native: ~1%
- Asian: ~1%
- Two or more races (non-Hispanic): ~3–5%
- Households:
- Total households: ~15.5k
- Average household size: ~2.6–2.7
- Family households: ~10–11k
- Owner-occupied share: ~70–75%
- Renter-occupied share: ~25–30%
Notes: Figures are rounded ACS 5-year estimates to keep the profile concise. If you need exact counts/percentages to the decimal by table (e.g., DP05, S0101, DP02), say which vintage you prefer and I’ll provide the precise values.
Email Usage in Cooke County
Cooke County, TX email usage (estimates):
- Users: 29–33k residents use email regularly. Method: county population ~42–44k; ~78% adults; 85–90% of adults plus most teens use email.
- Age mix of email users: 13–17: 6–7%; 18–29: 15–18%; 30–49: 32–36%; 50–64: 25–28%; 65+: 18–22% (county skews slightly older than metro Texas).
- Gender split: roughly 50% women / 50% men; differences are negligible.
- Digital access trends: Home broadband and smartphone access continue to rise; smartphone‑only households ~10–15%. About 10–15% of households still lack a home broadband subscription, concentrated in rural tracts. Fixed wireless and satellite fill gaps; fiber/cable strongest in Gainesville, along the I‑35 corridor, and in towns like Valley View and Muenster.
- Local density/connectivity context: Cooke County is sparsely populated compared with the Texas average, with many dispersed addresses outside city limits. This lowers provider incentives and raises buildout costs, creating pockets of slower speeds and higher latency outside the corridor. Recent state/federal broadband programs are targeting these unserved areas.
Mobile Phone Usage in Cooke County
Cooke County, Texas: mobile phone usage snapshot (with emphasis on how it differs from statewide patterns)
User estimates (order-of-magnitude, based on county size, rural adoption norms, and recent national/state surveys)
- Population base: roughly 43,000–46,000 residents; households about 16,000–17,000.
- Mobile phone users (any handset): about 34,000–37,000 residents.
- Smartphone users: about 29,000–32,000 residents.
- Wireless-only households (no landline): roughly 11,000–13,000 (about 70–75% of households, a bit higher than many rural areas due to limited landline value).
- Prepaid share: meaningfully higher than Texas’ big-metro average; expect mid-20s to low-30s percent of lines (vs. closer to ~20% in urban Texas).
Demographic patterns that shape usage (and how they diverge from Texas overall)
- Older age structure: Cooke has a larger 55+ and 65+ share than Texas overall. This pulls smartphone adoption and app intensity slightly below the state average and keeps a small but notable segment on basic/flip phones.
- Income and education: Median income and bachelor’s attainment trail Texas metros. That shows up as:
- Higher prepaid and budget Android usage.
- More price-sensitive data plans and intermittent plan cycling.
- Race/ethnicity and household composition: The county skews more non-Hispanic White and has smaller immigrant and multilingual populations than the state average. Mobile content and plan selection are less driven by international calling/roaming needs than in major Texas metros.
- Work patterns: A sizable share of jobs in trades, manufacturing, agriculture, and logistics creates heavier voice/SMS and maps/navigation use and more weekday, on-the-road data usage than app-centric, office-heavy metros.
Usage behaviors that differ from state-level norms
- Higher “mobile-only internet” reliance: Where fixed broadband is weak or absent, households lean on smartphones and hotspots for homework, streaming, and work tasks. This rate is above Texas’ urban counties.
- Plan mix and devices: Android share is higher; iPhone share lower than in Dallas–Fort Worth, Austin, or Houston. Prepaid and MVNO lines have a larger footprint.
- App mix and data: Video and navigation are big drivers along I‑35 and US‑82 corridors; overall per-line data use is constrained by coverage/capacity gaps in outlying areas, keeping average monthly usage below big-city Texans with dense mid-band 5G.
Digital infrastructure and coverage (what matters locally)
- Where coverage is strong:
- Gainesville, Valley View, Lindsay, and Muenster towns; I‑35, US‑82, and US‑377 corridors. Expect all three nationals (AT&T, Verizon, T‑Mobile) with generally reliable LTE and low-band 5G, and mid-band 5G on select sites along I‑35.
- Where it’s weaker:
- Sparsely populated western ranchland and Red River bottoms; terrain and distance to towers create dead zones and low indoor signal. Lake and recreational areas can be patchy.
- 5G reality:
- Mid-band 5G (fast, capacity-building) is concentrated along I‑35 and in/near Gainesville; coverage becomes spotty as you move into unincorporated areas. That’s a step behind Texas’ metros, where contiguous mid-band 5G is now common.
- Carrier dynamics:
- AT&T and Verizon generally lead in rural reach and indoor reliability; T‑Mobile often leads in peak speeds where its mid-band 5G is present but can fall back to weaker LTE at the fringes.
- Backhaul and fiber (affects mobile capacity):
- Fiber runs along major corridors and to several towns; local and regional providers have expanded fiber in places like Muenster/Lindsay and parts of the Gainesville area. This has enabled some recent 5G upgrades, but fiber-to-tower is inconsistent in remote zones, where microwave backhaul limits capacity.
- Fixed broadband context (shapes mobile dependence):
- Cable internet in Gainesville and fiber pockets in smaller towns reduce mobile-only reliance there; outside these pockets, residents often use smartphone hotspots or fixed wireless (WISPs/5G home) as their primary home internet.
- Public safety and resilience:
- FirstNet (AT&T) adoption by local agencies is typical for rural North Texas, improving priority access during storms. However, severe weather and power events can still knock out isolated sites; residents sometimes hedge with multi-carrier households or keep hotspots as backup.
Key ways Cooke County differs from Texas overall
- Slightly lower smartphone penetration and higher basic-phone share due to older age structure.
- Higher prepaid/MVNO usage and higher Android share driven by income and credit profiles.
- More mobile-only internet households and hotspot use where wired broadband is thin.
- Less contiguous mid-band 5G and lower median mobile speeds than large Texas metros; more pronounced rural dead zones.
- Usage skews practical (voice/SMS, navigation, essential apps) over data-heavy discretionary usage seen in urban counties with dense 5G.
Notes on methodology
- Figures are estimates triangulated from recent national mobile adoption research (e.g., Pew/NHIS), rural-vs-urban deltas, American Community Survey-style demographics, and known North Texas infrastructure patterns. They are intended for planning-level decisions rather than precise counts.
Social Media Trends in Cooke County
Below is a County-level snapshot built from U.S./Texas social media patterns (Pew Research, DataReportal) scaled to Cooke County’s size, rural profile, age mix, and broadband access. Treat figures as best-fit estimates, not hard counts.
Cooke County at a glance (2025 est.)
- Population: ~44,000; adults 18+: ~33,000–35,000
- Home broadband: roughly 70–78% of households; notable smartphone‑only segment
How many people use social media?
- Adult social media users: ~24,000–27,000 (about 70–78% of adults)
- All residents using social media: ~28,000–32,000 (about 65–72% of total population)
Most‑used platforms (share of adults using at least monthly, est.)
- YouTube: 72–80%
- Facebook: 64–72%
- Instagram: 32–40%
- TikTok: 26–34%
- Pinterest: 28–36% (skews female)
- Snapchat: 20–28% (concentrated under 35)
- X (Twitter): 12–18% (skews male)
- WhatsApp: 10–16% (higher among Hispanic residents)
- Reddit: 10–15% (younger/male skew)
- LinkedIn: 10–14% (professionals)
- Nextdoor: 6–10% (Gainesville/subdivisions)
Age patterns (who’s active where)
- Teens (13–17): Heavy on YouTube, TikTok, Snapchat; Instagram strong; Facebook limited and mostly for groups/school info.
- 18–29: Broadest mix; YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat dominate; Facebook used for local ties and Marketplace.
- 30–49: Facebook and YouTube lead; Instagram moderate; TikTok rising; Pinterest strong for home/DIY/recipes; WhatsApp for family comms.
- 50–64: Facebook primary; YouTube for how‑tos/local content; Pinterest moderate; some Nextdoor.
- 65+: Facebook and YouTube; limited Instagram/TikTok; Nextdoor for neighborhood info where available.
Gender breakdown (overall, est.)
- Social media users: ~53–56% female, ~44–47% male
- Platform skews: Pinterest and Facebook Groups skew female; YouTube, Reddit, X skew male; Instagram and TikTok near balanced with slight female lean.
Behavioral trends to know
- Community-first behavior: Facebook Groups are the digital town square (schools, churches, booster clubs, yard sales, lost/found pets). Marketplace is heavily used for vehicles, ranch/farm gear, tools, furniture.
- Local news and updates: High engagement with regional outlets and local officials on Facebook; school closings and weather updates drive spikes.
- Short-form video momentum: Reels/TikTok clips of local sports, events, restaurant dishes; captions are essential (many watch muted).
- Shopping and discovery: Facebook and Instagram drive to small businesses (boutiques, salons, trades); deals under $20, time‑limited offers, and giveaways perform well.
- Messaging habits: Facebook Messenger is default for many; WhatsApp adoption higher among Hispanic residents and families with out‑of‑area ties.
- Timing: Peaks around 7–9 a.m., lunch, and 7–10 p.m.; weekends strong for marketplace and events.
- Language and tone: Friendly, hyper‑local voice outperforms polished corporate tone; bilingual (English/Spanish) posts expand reach.
Notes on methodology
- County‑specific social media data are scarce; estimates apply current U.S./Texas usage rates by age/gender to Cooke County’s demographics and rural broadband profile. Use for planning and directional benchmarking rather than precise measurement.
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
- Brown
- Burleson
- Burnet
- Caldwell
- Calhoun
- Callahan
- Cameron
- Camp
- Carson
- Cass
- Castro
- Chambers
- Cherokee
- Childress
- Clay
- Cochran
- Coke
- Coleman
- Collin
- Collingsworth
- Colorado
- Comal
- Comanche
- Concho
- 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