Gillespie County

Here are key demographics for Gillespie County, Texas (U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2019–2023 5-year estimates; rounded):

• Population: ~27,000
• Age:
  • Median age: ~51
  • Under 18: ~18%
  • 18–64: ~54%
  • 65 and over: ~28%
• Sex:
  • Female: ~51%
  • Male: ~49%
• Race/ethnicity (Hispanic is an ethnicity):
  • Non-Hispanic White: ~70%
  • Hispanic/Latino (any race): ~25–27%
  • Black/African American (non-Hispanic): ~1%
  • Asian (non-Hispanic): ~1%
  • Two or more races and other (non-Hispanic): ~2–3%
• Households:
  • Total households: ~11,500
  • Average household size: ~2.3
  • Family households: ~65–67% of households
  • Married-couple households: ~55–60% of households

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2019–2023 5-year estimates.

Gillespie County, TX (pop. ≈27,000) — Estimated email usage snapshot

• Estimated email users: 22,000–24,000 residents (roughly 80–90% of those age 13+), reflecting high email adoption among internet users.
• Age distribution of email users (approx.):
  • 18–29: 15–20%
  • 30–49: 25–30%
  • 50–64: 22–26%
  • 65+: 28–34% (county skews older; seniors use email slightly less than younger adults but still widely)
• Gender split: ~49% male / 51% female among users (mirrors population; usage is similar by gender).
• Digital access trends:
  • 83–87% of households have a broadband subscription; 90–94% have a computer/smartphone.
  • 12–18% are mobile-only internet users; 3–6% report no home internet.
  • Ongoing growth in fiber availability and 4G/5G coverage; fixed wireless and satellite fill rural gaps.
• Local density/connectivity facts:
  • Population density ≈25 people per square mile (rural).
  • Strongest fixed broadband in and around Fredericksburg and along US‑290/US‑87 corridors; outer ranchlands have more limited wired options.

Notes: Figures are estimates derived from recent ACS/FCC/Pew patterns applied to local demographics. For planning, verify with current provider maps and county/ISD reports.

Gillespie County, TX — Mobile phone usage snapshot (what’s different from Texas overall)

At-a-glance size

• Population: about 27,000; households: about 11,000.
• Economy and geography: tourism-driven hub (Fredericksburg) surrounded by ranchland; hilly terrain with coverage gaps away from highways.

User estimates

• Smartphone users: roughly 19,000–22,000 residents (about 72–82% of total population; ~83–88% of adults). This trails Texas, where adult smartphone adoption is closer to 88–92%.
• Households with a smartphone: about 84–88% (Texas: ~91–93%).
• Mobile-only internet households (cellular data but no wired subscription): about 16–20% of households (Texas: ~21–23%). In Gillespie, the older age profile and a notable “no-internet” group temper mobile-only share.
• Households with no internet subscription: roughly 12–15% (Texas: ~8–9%).

Demographic patterns shaping usage (versus Texas)

• Older residents: 65+ make up roughly 28–30% of the county (Texas ~13–15%). Senior smartphone adoption is lower (around 65–75%), with more voice/text-centric use and lower app intensity; this is the single biggest factor pulling county averages below the state.
• Working-age population: 18–34 adoption is near-universal (95%+), but this cohort is a smaller slice of the local population than statewide.
• Language and culture: Spanish-speaking households are a smaller share than Texas overall. Bilingual support still matters in service/hospitality settings but demand is less concentrated than in major Texas metros.
• Plan mix: Slightly higher prevalence of prepaid among seasonal/service workers, but many older, higher-income homeowners use postpaid plans. Overall, plan churn is lower than metro Texas.
• Daily/seasonal usage: Weekends and festival seasons drive sharp, predictable spikes in data demand (tourism), unlike most Texas counties.

Digital infrastructure (how it differs from state patterns)

• Cellular coverage
  • Strongest, most consistent rural coverage from AT&T and Verizon; T-Mobile performs well in Fredericksburg and along US‑290 but can drop off in outlying ranchlands.
  • 5G mid-band is present in Fredericksburg/US‑290 corridor; beyond that, coverage leans on LTE/low-band 5G with occasional dead zones in the hills. Coverage consistency lags Texas metro norms.
• Fixed and home internet
  • Fiber exists in parts of Fredericksburg and select subdivisions (not countywide). Many rural addresses still rely on legacy DSL/cable, fixed wireless, or satellite.
  • Fixed Wireless Access (5G home internet from T‑Mobile/Verizon) is available in and around Fredericksburg and is adopted at higher rates than the Texas average in fringe areas because it outperforms aging copper.
  • WISPs and Starlink see noticeable uptake on larger properties where wired options are limited.
• Public connectivity
  • Dense Wi‑Fi availability in downtown Fredericksburg, wineries, and hospitality venues (supporting tourist demand), but far fewer public options outside the town center.
• Reliability factors
  • Terrain (granite hills) and long distances between towers create signal variability; boosters/repeaters are more common than in urban Texas.
  • Event-driven congestion is more acute relative to resident base than in most counties.

Key ways Gillespie differs from Texas overall

• Lower overall smartphone penetration driven by a much older population mix.
• Higher share of “no-internet” households; mobile-only share is not as high as state average because a portion of seniors opt for neither wired nor mobile internet.
• Greater reliance on fixed wireless and satellite in rural tracts; fiber buildout is improving but remains patchy compared with Texas metros.
• Seasonal tourism surges create atypical, time-bound capacity stress.
• Carrier choice is more coverage-driven (AT&T/Verizon favored in the hinterland) than price- or speed-driven, unlike competitive Texas metros.

Notes on sources and method

• Estimates synthesize U.S. Census ACS “Computer and Internet Use” (S2801, 5‑year), FCC National Broadband Map, carrier coverage disclosures, Pew Research on age-based smartphone adoption, and provider buildout announcements through 2024. Figures are rounded ranges to reflect small-area uncertainty. Actual conditions can vary by neighborhood.

Below is a concise, data‑informed snapshot. Because platform vendors don’t publish county‑level figures, the numbers are estimates built from U.S. Census/ACS population structure for Gillespie County, plus Pew Research Center 2024 U.S. social media usage rates, adjusted for the county’s older, more rural profile.

County snapshot

• Population: ~27–28k; skews older (roughly 26–30% age 65+; median age ~50).
• Estimated social media users (age 13+): ~17–19k (about 75–80% of 13+ population).
• Daily users: ~11.5–13k (about two‑thirds of social users).
• Gender among social users: slight female majority (≈52–55%), reflecting the older age mix.

Most‑used platforms locally (share of adults; estimates)

• YouTube: 70–75%
• Facebook: 60–65%
• Instagram: 35–40%
• Pinterest: 30–35% (heavily female)
• TikTok: 22–28% (younger skew; tourism content helps)
• Snapchat: 22–28% (teens/20s)
• WhatsApp: 15–20% (higher with bilingual/Latino households and hospitality staff)
• X (Twitter): 12–15% (news/sports niche)
• Reddit: 10–12% (younger male niche)
• Nextdoor: 10–15% (neighborhoods in/near Fredericksburg)

Age-group patterns (who’s active where)

• Teens (13–17): Very high YouTube; Snapchat, TikTok, and Instagram dominate; Facebook minimal except for family/school groups.
• 18–29: Heavy Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube; Facebook used for events/marketplace and local jobs.
• 30–49: Facebook and YouTube strongest; Instagram solid; Pinterest common (home, food, crafts); growing TikTok for local eats/activities; WhatsApp for family/work.
• 50–64: Facebook Groups and Marketplace; YouTube for DIY/ranch/outdoor; some Instagram/Pinterest; limited TikTok.
• 65+: Facebook is primary; YouTube for news/how‑to; some Nextdoor; low Instagram/TikTok.

Gender tendencies (directional)

• Women over‑index on Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest, TikTok; men over‑index on YouTube, Reddit, X.
• Platform user mix estimates: Facebook ~58–60% female; Instagram ~55–60% female; Pinterest ~70–75% female; TikTok ~55–60% female; YouTube ~55–60% male; X ~60–65% male; Reddit ~65–70% male.

Behavioral trends in Gillespie County

• Community-first: Strong reliance on Facebook Groups and Marketplace for school sports, church events, local news, yard/estate sales, lost-and-found, and civic issues.
• Tourism economy effect: Local wineries, breweries, music venues, and B&Bs drive Instagram Reels/TikTok; spikes around wildflower season, wine trail weekends, Oktoberfest, and holidays.
• Visual/local pride: High engagement on photo/video of Hill Country scenery, bluebonnets, live music, food trucks, and ranch/outdoor content; UGC and reposts perform well.
• Practical use: YouTube for DIY, home/ranch maintenance, hunting/fishing, and equipment reviews; Facebook for buying/selling, service recommendations, and school/rec sports.
• Timing: Engagement clusters early morning (6:30–8:30 a.m.) and evenings (7–9 p.m.); weekend mid‑day bursts with events and visitors.
• Messaging: English dominant, but bilingual (English/Spanish) posts widen reach in hospitality, construction, and services.
• Ads and targeting: Effective when geofenced to Fredericksburg + US‑290 corridor and weekend visitors from Austin/San Antonio; event‑based boosts outperform always‑on spend.
• Trust cues: Local faces, recognizable landmarks, and community partnerships drive higher CTR; reviews/testimonials are heavily consulted before trying new local businesses.

Notes on method and sources

• Population structure from U.S. Census/ACS; platform penetration from Pew Research Center’s 2024 Social Media Use study, adjusted downward for rural/older skew and upward where tourism/community usage is known to be strong. Treat figures as planning estimates, not audited counts.