Hardin County

Key demographics for Hardin County, Texas (latest U.S. Census Bureau data: 2020 Census and 2019–2023 ACS 5-year)

Population size

• Total population: ~60,000 (2023 estimate); ~58,000 (2020 Census)

Age

• Under 5: ~6–7%
• Under 18: ~25–26%
• 65 and over: ~16%
• Median age: ~37–38 years

Gender

• Female: ~50–51% of population

Racial/ethnic composition

• White alone: ~86–88%
• Black or African American alone: ~7%
• American Indian/Alaska Native alone: ~0.5–0.7%
• Asian alone: ~0.7%
• Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander alone: ~0.1%
• Two or more races: ~3–5%
• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~9–10%
• White alone, not Hispanic or Latino: ~78–80% Note: Hispanic is an ethnicity and overlaps with race categories.

Household data

• Households: ~21,000–22,000
• Persons per household: ~2.7–2.8
• Family households: ~74%
• Married-couple families: ~58%
• Households with children under 18: ~33–34%
• Owner-occupied housing rate: ~77–79%
• Median household income (in 2022 dollars): roughly mid-to-high $60,000s

Insights

• Predominantly non-Hispanic White population with a modest Hispanic share and small Black population relative to state averages.
• Family-oriented and high owner-occupancy, with household size above the U.S. average.
• Age profile is moderately young-to-middle-aged with a sizable 65+ segment.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; American Community Survey 2019–2023 5-year estimates; Population Estimates Program (July 1, 2023).

Hardin County, TX (2024 est. pop. 59,000) has roughly 45,000 email users (77% of residents). Population density is about 66 people per square mile across ~891 sq mi of land.

Estimated email users by age

• 13–17: ~3,500
• 18–34: ~11,700
• 35–64: ~22,100
• 65+: ~8,000

Gender split

• Population: ~51% female, ~49% male
• Email usage is near parity: ~23,000 female users, ~22,000 male users

Digital access and connectivity

• ~86% of households subscribe to broadband; ~92% have a computer or tablet; ~12% are smartphone‑only internet households.
• Cable/fiber coverage is strongest in and around Lumberton, Silsbee, and Kountze along the US‑69/96 corridors; outlying northern and Big Thicket fringe areas rely more on DSL and fixed wireless, with lower speeds and higher latency.
• 4G LTE is widespread; 5G covers main corridors and town centers, supporting mobile email access where fixed service is weaker.

Insights

• Adults 35–64 account for about half of all email users, reflecting strong workforce reliance.
• Seniors (65+) contribute ~18% of users; continued device access improvements suggest gradual uptake growth.
• High household device availability and corridor‑based cable/fiber presence sustain consistently high email engagement countywide.

Mobile phone usage in Hardin County, Texas: summary, estimates, and infrastructure

Context and population baseline

• Population: about 57,000 (2020 Census). Roughly 21,000 households (ACS 5‑year).
• Demographic profile differs from Texas overall: older (share of residents 65+ is several points higher than the state average), more suburban-rural, and with lower median household income than the Texas median. These factors correlate with slightly lower smartphone penetration and higher reliance on mobile service as a primary home connection.

User estimates and adoption

• Mobile phone users (any handset): 49,000–52,000 residents, driven by near-universal adoption among adults and teens. This equates to roughly 95% of residents age 12+.
• Smartphone users: 44,000–47,000 residents. Adult smartphone adoption is slightly below the Texas average because of a larger senior share and rural pockets with weaker coverage.
• Household connectivity patterns:
  • Cellular data plan in household: materially below big-metro Texas rates, but mobile-only home internet is higher than the Texas average. Estimated 7–9% of Hardin County households are “cellular-only” at home (vs roughly 5–6% statewide), rising in areas outside Lumberton/Silsbee and near the Big Thicket.
  • Prepaid share is a few percentage points higher than the Texas average, reflecting price sensitivity and variable coverage across carriers.
• Usage behavior:
  • Voice/SMS remains more prominent among older residents than in major Texas metros; OTT calling and heavy video streaming skew younger and to households with cable or fiber.
  • Device turnover is slower than in urban Texas; average handset life is longer by roughly 6–12 months, evident in higher concentrations of LTE-only and early 5G devices in use.

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• 4G LTE: Broad county coverage across major corridors (US‑69/287, US‑96, TX‑105), with performance dips in forested and sparsely populated northern tracts.
• 5G (low-band): Countywide population coverage from national carriers, but with notable reliance on low-band 5G (similar range to LTE and only modest speed uplift compared with midband).
• 5G (midband/C‑band/2.5 GHz): Concentrated in and around Lumberton–Silsbee and along the US‑69/287 corridor toward Beaumont. Availability is materially lower than the Texas metro average, and midband coverage thins quickly north of Kountze and toward Saratoga/Honey Island.
• mmWave 5G: Minimal and site-specific, generally not a factor for everyday users outside select venues.
• Fixed access interplay:
  • Cable internet is present in core towns (e.g., Lumberton/Silsbee), but rural stretches depend on DSL remnants, fixed wireless, or satellite. This patchiness raises the share of homes using mobile hotspots or phone tethering as their primary connection.
  • T‑Mobile 5G Home and Verizon 5G Home are available in and near denser corridors; take-up is faster here than Texas-wide averages because of gaps in wired choices outside town centers.
• Backhaul and towers:
  • Macro sites are concentrated along highways and population clusters; northern Hardin (near Big Thicket National Preserve) has fewer sites and more foliage attenuation, which suppresses midband 5G performance.
  • Fiber backhaul is strongest along US‑69/287 and into Jefferson County; outside those routes, microwave backhaul is still in use at some sites, which can cap peak speeds during busy hours.

How Hardin County trends differ from Texas overall

• Adoption level: Overall handset adoption is comparable, but smartphone penetration is a few points lower than Texas due to age mix and rural coverage constraints.
• Mobile‑only households: Higher than the state average, reflecting patchy wired broadband outside municipal cores.
• Network performance: Median mobile download speeds trail Texas-state medians because the county relies more on LTE and low-band 5G, with less contiguous midband 5G than metro counties.
• 5G availability: Population coverage looks high on maps, but practical midband 5G availability is meaningfully lower than statewide urban/suburban norms; users more often fall back to LTE in northern/forested areas.
• Plan mix and spending: Higher prepaid share and greater sensitivity to promotional pricing; unlimited plans favored among commuter households along the Beaumont corridor, but average ARPU runs lower than big-city Texas.
• Growth areas: Fixed wireless access (FWA) adoption is growing faster than the Texas average in neighborhoods lacking cable/fiber; this is nudging more households into mobile-centric usage patterns.

Implications

• Coverage improvements that extend midband 5G north of Kountze and into sparsely populated tracts would translate directly into higher smartphone satisfaction and greater FWA addressability.
• Demand skews toward value plans and reliable LTE/low-band 5G coverage; device financing and trade-in offers are disproportionately effective.
• Coordinated tower densification and fiber backhaul upgrades along US‑69/287 and outlying school zones will deliver outsized quality gains compared with urban Texas, where networks are already dense.

Sources and basis

• 2020 Decennial Census (population/households).
• ACS 5‑year Computer and Internet Use indicators for Texas counties (household device and subscription patterns).
• FCC Broadband Data Collection and carrier public coverage maps for 4G/5G availability.
• National handset adoption by age from Pew Research; county estimates scaled using Hardin County’s older age profile and rural share.
• Industry speed and deployment snapshots (e.g., Ookla/Opensignal) to characterize relative performance versus statewide medians.

Social media usage in Hardin County, TX — 2025 snapshot

What to know at a glance

• Overall reach: Expect the vast majority of adults in Hardin County to be reachable on at least one platform; rural/suburban Texas counties track closely with U.S. adoption, where practical reach exceeds 80% when YouTube is counted.
• Local behavior: Facebook (including Groups and Marketplace) is the daily hub for community news, schools, churches, buy/sell, and weather; YouTube and short‑form video (Reels/Shorts/TikTok) drive entertainment and “how‑to” discovery; Instagram is key for 18–34; Snapchat is teen‑centric; Nextdoor appears in HOA/subdivision pockets.

Most‑used platforms (planning baseline; U.S. adults, which aligns closely with non‑metro Texas adoption)

• YouTube: 83%
• Facebook: 68%
• Instagram: 47%
• Pinterest: 35%
• TikTok: 33%
• LinkedIn: 31%
• Snapchat: 27%
• X (Twitter): 22%
• Reddit: 22%
• WhatsApp: 21%
• Nextdoor: 20% How this maps locally: Facebook and YouTube typically over‑index in rural/suburban counties like Hardin; Nextdoor concentrates in subdivisions around Lumberton and newer developments; TikTok/Instagram skew toward younger adults in Silsbee/Lumberton school communities.

Age‑group patterns (applies to Hardin; figures reflect national usage patterns used for local planning)

• Teens (13–17): Extremely high YouTube use; majority on TikTok and Snapchat; Instagram strong; Facebook minimal for posting but used for family/teams.
• 18–29: Instagram, TikTok, YouTube are primary; Snapchat remains high for messaging; Facebook used for events/groups but less for posting.
• 30–49: Facebook (daily), YouTube, Instagram; growing TikTok viewing for recipes, tips, local businesses.
• 50–64: Facebook and YouTube dominate; Pinterest for projects/recipes; some TikTok growth for entertainment/how‑to.
• 65+: Facebook is the anchor; YouTube for news and tutorials; minimal TikTok/Snapchat.

Gender breakdown (directional patterns consistent in Hardin)

• Women: Over‑index on Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest (Pinterest users are predominantly female); strong engagement with community groups, schools, health/wellness, local shopping; heavy use of Facebook Messenger.
• Men: Over‑index on YouTube, Reddit, X, LinkedIn; strong engagement with local sports, outdoors, trades, vehicles, and severe‑weather content.

Behavioral trends and engagement cues

• Community and utility content wins: School athletics, church/community events, severe weather, traffic/incidents, local fundraisers, and local business spotlights drive shares and comments.
• Groups > Pages for reach: Neighborhood, school, youth sports, hunting/fishing, and buy/sell groups are the fastest way to seed local reach in Hardin County.
• Marketplace and social commerce: Facebook Marketplace is a primary channel for local buying/selling of vehicles, tools, home goods, and rentals.
• Video first: Short vertical video (Reels/Shorts/TikTok) outperforms static posts; best hooks are local faces, places, and problems solved in the first 2–3 seconds.
• Timing: Highest engagement typically evenings (6–10 p.m.) and weekends; local news/weather spikes can break this pattern.
• Messaging: Many residents prefer DM (Facebook/Instagram) over email/phone for inquiries; quick responses materially boost conversion.
• Trust cues: Local faces, uniforms/logos, testimonials, and location tags improve click‑through and comment sentiment; overtly political content polarizes outside election windows.

Practical takeaways

• Prioritize Facebook (Pages + Groups + Marketplace) and YouTube for county‑wide reach; layer Instagram and TikTok for under‑40; use Nextdoor selectively in HOA neighborhoods.
• Lead with short‑form local video; repurpose to Reels/Shorts/TikTok.
• Anchor campaigns to community calendars (school sports, fairs, storms) for outsized organic lift.

Note on figures: County‑level social media platform surveys are rarely published; the percentages above are the latest widely cited U.S. adult usage rates (and 13–17 teen benchmarks) that closely match rural/suburban Texas patterns and are reliable for Hardin County planning.