Cottle County

Key demographics for Cottle County, Texas

• Population

  • 2020 Census: 1,380
  • 2023 estimate: ~1,300 (U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates)

• Age

  • Median age: ~47 years
  • Under 18: ~21%
  • 65 and over: ~26%

• Sex

  • Male: ~51%
  • Female: ~49%

• Race/ethnicity (non-overlapping; Hispanic can be any race)

  • Non-Hispanic White: ~69–72%
  • Hispanic or Latino: ~22–25%
  • Non-Hispanic Black: ~4–6%
  • American Indian/Alaska Native (NH): ~1%
  • Asian (NH): ~0–1%
  • Two or more races (NH): ~1–2%

• Households

  • Total households: ~660–680
  • Average household size: ~2.0–2.1
  • Family households: ~55–60% of households
  • Married-couple families: ~45–50% of households

Notes: Figures are from the U.S. Census Bureau (2020 Decennial Census; 2019–2023 American Community Survey 5-year estimates; Vintage 2023 Population Estimates). Small-county ACS estimates have larger margins of error.

Summary of email usage in Cottle County, Texas

• Scale and density: 1,380 residents spread across ~900 sq. mi. (1.5 people/sq. mi.); population centered in Paducah. Extremely rural context shapes connectivity.
• Estimated email users: Adult population ~1,050–1,100. Using typical U.S. adoption for adults in rural areas (roughly 85–90%), about 900–1,000 residents likely use email.
• Age pattern (applying national usage rates to a county that skews older):
  • 18–49: near-universal email use (~95%+).
  • 50–64: high (~90%).
  • 65+: substantial but lower (~75–85%).
  • Net effect: overall adoption slightly below urban counties due to a larger 65+ share.
• Gender split: Approximately even overall; among older cohorts, women may represent a slightly larger share of active users due to longevity.
• Digital access and trends:
  • Fixed broadband availability and subscription likely below the Texas average; provider choice is limited and speeds vary by location.
  • Service is typically strongest in/near Paducah; many outlying households rely on cellular or satellite.
  • Public Wi‑Fi (e.g., library/schools/county facilities) and mobile-only access are important complements.
  • Younger adults are more mobile-first; older adults use email but may check less frequently.

Notes: Estimates use U.S. Census population and national Pew-style adoption benchmarks applied to a very rural county context.

Summary: Mobile phone usage in Cottle County, Texas (focus on differences vs statewide)

Context

• Small, very rural county centered on Paducah; population roughly 1,350–1,450 with an older age profile and lower household income than the Texas average. These factors, plus sparse infrastructure, shape mobile adoption and usage.

User estimates (modeled from Census age mix, Pew rural adoption rates, and typical rural-TX carrier coverage)

• Total mobile phone users: about 1,000–1,100 residents.
• Adult mobile owners (18+): ~900–950.
• Adult smartphone users: ~740–820; feature‑phone-only adults: ~150–200.
• Teen mobile users (12–17): ~90–110 (most on smartphones).
• Households relying primarily on cellular for home internet: roughly 25–35% of households (well above the state average), reflecting limited wired options.

Demographic breakdown and usage patterns

• Age
  • 18–34: Near-state smartphone adoption (≈90%); heavy app/social use but constrained by data caps where fixed broadband is absent.
  • 35–64: Slightly lower than state adoption; pragmatic use (work comms, navigation, ag/weather apps).
  • 65+: Smartphone adoption markedly lower than state (often 60–70% vs ~80% statewide), with above-average reliance on flip/feature phones; voice/SMS remain important.
• Income
  • More prepaid plans and budget Android devices than Texas overall.
  • Higher mobile-only internet reliance for entire households; hotspots/tethering used to substitute for home broadband.
• Race/ethnicity
  • Hispanic residents show higher mobile-only internet dependence (work schedules, remittances, messaging apps), similar to statewide patterns, but the dependency gap vs non-Hispanic White residents is larger here because wired alternatives are thinner.
• Work and sector specifics
  • Agriculture/ranching drive daytime usage along highways and pasture edges; device mix includes rugged phones and cellular IoT where signal exists.
  • Public-sector users (school, county) commonly on AT&T/FirstNet or Verizon; Wi‑Fi offload at school/library is more critical than in urban counties.

Digital infrastructure highlights

• Coverage
  • 4G LTE is the practical baseline; reliable along US‑62/70 and TX‑70 and in/near Paducah; noticeable dead zones on ranch roads and section-line routes.
  • 5G availability exists but is predominantly low-band; mid-band 5G is sparse. Real-world speeds in town often 25–80 Mbps; many out-of-town areas fall back to LTE in the 5–25 Mbps range.
• Carriers
  • AT&T and Verizon generally offer the strongest rural footprint and building penetration; T‑Mobile coverage is improving via low-band but remains patchier off the main corridors.
  • MVNO users experience greater deprioritization in peak hours due to limited rural sector capacity.
• Capacity/backhaul
  • Sparse macro-tower grid; several sites rely on microwave backhaul. Limited fiber to towers constrains peak throughput compared with Texas metro and suburban counties.
• Fixed broadband context (drives mobile behavior)
  • Fiber-to-the-home is limited; outside the town core many locations depend on older DSL, fixed wireless, or satellite. A meaningful number of addresses are or were BEAD‑eligible, indicating gaps vs state benchmarks.
• Public access and resilience
  • Few public Wi‑Fi nodes (library, school, courthouse); residents routinely offload downloads there.
  • Weather and distance mean Wireless Emergency Alerts are important, but patchy coverage leaves pockets with unreliable reception.

How Cottle County differs from Texas overall

• Lower smartphone penetration, driven mainly by an older population and tighter budgets (roughly 8–12 percentage points below the statewide adult rate).
• Higher share of feature‑phone users, particularly among seniors.
• Significantly higher share of mobile-only internet households; cellular is often the primary or only broadband.
• Slower typical 5G/LTE speeds and more coverage gaps; LTE remains dominant outside town, whereas much of Texas now enjoys robust mid-band 5G.
• More prepaid plans, longer device replacement cycles, and greater sensitivity to data caps.
• Usage skews toward voice/SMS, navigation, ag/weather apps, and hotspotting instead of high-bandwidth streaming at home.

Notes on methodology and uncertainty

• Estimates synthesize 2020–2023 Census/ACS population structure, Pew rural smartphone ownership, FCC rural coverage patterns, and typical rural-TX carrier footprints. Given small population and infrastructure changes underway, figures are best read as ranges rather than precise counts.

Here’s a concise, data‑informed snapshot. Because county‑level social data isn’t published for this small a population, figures below are estimates extrapolated from recent Pew Research Center US/rural patterns and Texas ACS demographics, scaled to Cottle County’s size (~1,400 residents).

Overall usage

• Adult social media penetration: 65–75% of adults (roughly 700–850 people) use at least one platform.
• Mobile-first: Majority access via smartphones; spotty broadband means shorter videos and static posts perform best.

Most‑used platforms (share of adult social media users)

• YouTube: 70–80%
• Facebook: 60–70%
• Instagram: 30–40%
• TikTok: 20–30%
• Snapchat: 15–25% (concentrated under 30)
• X/Twitter: 10–15%
• LinkedIn: 8–12% (teachers, healthcare, small-business owners)
• WhatsApp: 10–18% (higher among Hispanic households/family networks)
• Nextdoor: 3–6% (very limited network in a small county)

Age group patterns (approximate platform adoption within each age band)

• Teens 13–17: Snapchat 70–90%; TikTok 70–85%; Instagram 60–75%; Facebook 15–30%.
• Ages 18–29: Instagram 70–85%; Snapchat 60–75%; TikTok 55–70%; YouTube ~90%+; Facebook 45–60%.
• Ages 30–49: Facebook 75–85%; YouTube 85–90%; Instagram 40–55%; TikTok 25–35%.
• Ages 50–64: Facebook 70–80%; YouTube 70–80%; Instagram 25–35%; TikTok 15–25%.
• Ages 65+: Facebook 55–65%; YouTube 50–60%; Instagram 10–20%; TikTok 8–15%.

Gender breakdown (directional, among adult users)

• Overall users: roughly balanced (about 50–50).
• Platform skews: Facebook and Instagram lean slightly female; YouTube and X lean male; TikTok leans female. Snapchat skews female among younger users.

Behavioral trends

• Community-first Facebook: Local news, school sports, church updates, county offices, weather alerts; high engagement on obituaries, lost/found, and event posts.
• Marketplace matters: Frequent buy/sell for ranch/farm equipment, vehicles, tools, furniture; “ISO” posts common.
• YouTube use is practical: How‑to, ranching/AG content, hunting/fishing, music, sermons; often watched on smart TVs in evenings.
• Instagram is lighter/local: Family updates, booster clubs, boutiques, salons, and small businesses; Stories see more views than feed posts.
• TikTok is mostly consumption: Younger residents follow rodeo, ranch life, oilfield, fitness, and humor; few create original clips.
• Messaging backbone: Facebook Messenger for most adults; Snapchat for teens/20‑somethings; WhatsApp in some family circles; group SMS still prevalent.
• Timing: Peaks before work (6–8 a.m.), lunch (noon–1), and evenings (8–10 p.m.); Sunday activity is strong around church/community posts.
• Trust dynamics: Word‑of‑mouth and known local figures (coaches, pastors, business owners) drive action; user comments and shares outperform polished ads.
• Connectivity constraints: Live streams and long HD video underperform; short clips, photo carousels, and text/image posts load reliably.

Quick takeaways for outreach

• Prioritize Facebook (Pages, Groups, Events, Marketplace) and short YouTube videos; add Instagram for visual storytelling.
• Use simple, direct CTAs (call/text/DM) over website forms; boost posts to a tight geo radius around Paducah and neighboring towns.
• Lean into local faces, names, and causes; post during the identified peak times; keep videos under 30–45 seconds for reliability.

Notes on confidence

• Percentages are best‑fit ranges for a rural Texas county of this size; actual figures may vary by a few points with seasonal population shifts and connectivity changes.