Henderson County

Henderson County, Texas — key demographics

Population size

• 82,150 (2020 Decennial Census)
• ~83,700 (2023 Census estimate)

Age

• Median age: ~44 years
• Under 18: ~22%
• 18–64: ~57%
• 65 and over: ~21%

Gender

• Female: ~51%
• Male: ~49%

Race/ethnicity (mutually exclusive categories)

• White, non-Hispanic: ~71%
• Hispanic/Latino (any race): ~14%
• Black/African American, non-Hispanic: ~7%
• Two or more races, non-Hispanic: ~6%
• Asian, non-Hispanic: ~1%
• American Indian/Alaska Native, non-Hispanic: ~1%

Households and housing

• Households: ~32,600
• Average household size: ~2.5
• Family households: ~68%
• Average family size: ~3.0
• Owner-occupied housing rate: ~78%
• Households with children under 18: ~28%
• Married-couple households: ~52%

Insights

• Older age profile than Texas overall (median age ~44 vs. state ~35–36)
• Higher owner-occupancy and lower Hispanic share than Texas average
• Population has grown modestly since 2020

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; American Community Survey 2018–2022 5-year estimates; Vintage 2023 Population Estimates. Figures are rounded.

Henderson County, TX (2020 population 82,150; ~94 residents per square mile) has broad but uneven digital access supporting strong email use.

Estimated email users: ~63,000 (≈77% of residents), derived from local internet subscription rates and age-specific email adoption benchmarks.

Age distribution of email users (share of users):

• 13–17: ~8%
• 18–34: ~25%
• 35–54: ~31%
• 55–64: ~14%
• 65+: ~22%

Gender split of email users mirrors the population: ~51% female, ~49% male.

Digital access and trends:

• 80% of households have a broadband subscription (cable, fiber, DSL, or satellite), below the Texas average (87%).
• An estimated 12–15% of households are smartphone‑only for home internet.
• Connectivity is densest in and around Athens and the Cedar Creek Lake/US‑175 corridor (Athens–Eustace–Gun Barrel City/Seven Points), with sparser wired options in eastern and southern rural tracts where fixed wireless and satellite fill gaps.

Implications: High reach across working‑age adults and retirees; slightly lower adoption among 65+ dampens total penetration. Mobile‑centric access in rural pockets suggests optimizing email for small screens and variable network quality.

Henderson County, TX mobile phone usage summary (distinct from Texas overall)

Population context

• Land area: roughly 870+ square miles; low population density compared with Texas overall.
• Demographics skew older and more rural than Texas: a notably larger share of residents are 65+, lower median household income, and a higher share of White non-Hispanic residents compared with the state average.

Estimated mobile users and device mix

• Total mobile users: approximately 66,000–72,000 residents use a mobile phone on a regular basis.
• Adults: roughly 60,000–65,000 adult mobile users, with smartphone ownership in the low-to-mid 80% range among adults (lower than Texas’s urban-centric rates), and a small but meaningful segment using basic/feature phones for voice and text.
• Teens: an additional 5,000–6,000 teen users, most on smartphones.
• Smartphone vs. basic phone: smartphone users comprise around 80–85% of all mobile users; 15–20% use basic/feature phones or older smartphones, a higher share than the Texas average due to the county’s older age profile and lower incomes.

Usage patterns and how they differ from the Texas average

• Higher mobile-only reliance: an estimated 6,000–7,500 households primarily rely on mobile connections (smartphone hotspots or 4G/5G fixed wireless) for home internet. This share is higher than the statewide average because wireline options thin out outside town centers.
• Prepaid skew: prepaid and value brands (e.g., Cricket, Metro, Straight Talk) have a larger market share than in Texas’s metro counties, driven by income and credit profiles.
• Voice/text persistence: a larger minority maintains voice/SMS-centric usage (including basic phones), unlike Texas’s large metros where nearly all usage is smartphone-first and data-heavy.
• Seasonal peaks: traffic spikes around Cedar Creek Lake and lake-adjacent communities on weekends and holidays; this seasonal pattern is more pronounced than in most Texas urban counties.
• ACP/Lifeline sensitivity: the end of new Affordable Connectivity Program benefits in 2024 disproportionately affected cost-sensitive households here; carriers’ low-cost plans and fixed wireless promotions have been important bridges. The county has a higher share of households eligible for Lifeline/low-income plans than the Texas average.

Demographic factors shaping mobile adoption

• Age: a higher 65+ share than Texas overall results in more basic-phone and mixed-usage households and slightly lower smartphone penetration.
• Income and education: median household income and college attainment are lower than the state average, correlating with higher prepaid adoption, slower device upgrade cycles, and greater sensitivity to plan price changes.
• Race/ethnicity: the county remains majority White non-Hispanic with smaller Hispanic and Black communities than Texas overall, a mix associated (in national datasets) with slower uptake of premium 5G devices compared with large Texas metros.

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• 4G LTE: broadly available across populated areas and primary corridors (Athens, Gun Barrel City, Chandler, Malakoff, Eustace), with spotty coverage persisting in sparsely populated or heavily wooded tracts and around water edges.
• 5G: present along main highways and in/near town centers. Mid-band 5G (where available) substantially improves capacity, but contiguous mid-band coverage is less uniform than in Texas metros. Low-band 5G extends reach but offers only modest speed gains over LTE in fringe areas.
• Fixed wireless access (FWA): 5G and 4G FWA options are widely marketed and have above-average uptake relative to Texas overall, filling gaps where cable/fiber are absent or expensive.
• Wireline backhaul: cable broadband is concentrated in town centers; fiber is available in select pockets and along newer builds but is not countywide. Many outlying roads still depend on legacy DSL or fixed wireless, contributing to higher mobile data reliance.
• Network constraints: fewer macro sites per square mile than urban counties; carriers rely on a mix of highway sites, lake-adjacent placements, and sector densification. Occasional congestion appears during peak leisure periods and school start/end hours in town centers.

Performance and service characteristics

• Typical user speeds: LTE ranges widely from single-digit Mbps at cell edges to 50–100+ Mbps in strong-signal areas; mid-band 5G can deliver 150–400+ Mbps where signal is solid. Variability is greater than in Texas’s urban markets due to terrain, tree cover, and site spacing.
• Indoor coverage: older, larger-lot homes and metal buildings experience more indoor attenuation than in urban apartments; Wi‑Fi calling features are important for in-building reliability in fringe areas.

Key takeaways versus the Texas baseline

• Slightly lower smartphone penetration and higher basic-phone retention, linked to older age structure and income.
• Higher reliance on prepaid plans and on mobile/FWA for home connectivity due to patchier wireline options.
• 5G availability is meaningful but less uniform; capacity and coverage improve steadily along major corridors, while rural tracts lag metros.
• Seasonal tourism and lake communities create distinctive traffic peaks not seen in most Texas urban counties.

Social media usage in Henderson County, Texas (2025 snapshot; modeled from Pew Research Center 2023–2024 U.S. usage, Texas rural demographics via ACS, and platform ad-audience tools)

Overall penetration (adults 18+)

• Use at least one social platform monthly: 72–78%
• Daily social users: 60–66%
• Mobile-first usage: ~92–96% of social activity occurs on smartphones

Age makeup of social users

• 13–17: 7–9%
• 18–29: 17–20%
• 30–49: 32–36%
• 50–64: 25–28%
• 65+: 18–21% Note: County skews older vs U.S. average; usage is correspondingly strong in 50+ cohorts.

Gender breakdown of social users

• Female: 53–55%
• Male: 45–47% Platform skews: Facebook (female 56–58%), Instagram (female 58–62%), TikTok (female 60–63%), Pinterest (female 70–75%); YouTube (male 52–55%), X/Twitter (male 60–65%), Reddit (male 65–70%), Snapchat (female 55–60%).

Most-used platforms (adults; monthly reach, % of adults)

• YouTube: 75–80% (daily 45–50%)
• Facebook: 68–73% (daily 55–60%)
• Instagram: 30–35% (daily 20–24%)
• TikTok: 28–33% (daily 20–24%)
• Pinterest: 25–30% (daily 10–14%)
• Snapchat: 22–26% (daily 16–20%; highest in 13–24)
• LinkedIn: 12–16% (daily 5–7%)
• X/Twitter: 11–15% (daily 6–9%)
• Nextdoor: 9–12% (daily 5–7%)
• Reddit: 9–12% (daily 5–7%)

Behavioral trends and local patterns

• Community-first usage: Facebook Groups function as the default local hub (schools, churches, neighborhood and lake groups, buy/sell/trade, lost-and-found pets). Marketplace is heavily used for vehicles, tools, furniture, boats, and lake gear.
• Short-form video rise: Facebook Reels and TikTok drive discovery; typical effective clip length 15–45 seconds. YouTube is preferred for DIY, fishing/outdoors, repair, homesteading, and sermon replays.
• Messaging habits: Facebook Messenger dominates family and community messaging; Snapchat is primary for teens; WhatsApp usage is niche.
• Civic and news: Severe weather, school closings, utility outages, local elections, and public safety updates cause sharp engagement spikes on Facebook, followed by Nextdoor in lake-area neighborhoods.
• Commerce behavior: Local boutiques and service providers rely on Facebook Lives, Reels, and Marketplace listings; restaurants and events see best conversion via Facebook Events and Instagram posts/stories.
• Seasonality: Summer weekends around Cedar Creek Lake increase Instagram/TikTok posting and geotagged content; second-home owners boost weekend engagement.
• Peak activity windows: 7–9 a.m., 11:30 a.m.–1 p.m., and 7–10 p.m. CT; Tuesday–Thursday and Sunday evenings perform best for community-oriented posts.
• Format preferences: Local faces, practical info, deals, and family-friendly angles outperform; strong appetite for long comment threads and user-generated photos from schools, youth sports, and churches.
• Access constraints: Pockets of weaker fixed broadband push heavier mobile use and favor compressed, captioned video; creators see better completion rates with concise, text-on-screen formats.

Notes for application

• For broad reach and community action: prioritize Facebook and YouTube, with cross-posted short-form to Reels/TikTok.
• For youth-focused campaigns: Snapchat and TikTok; for professional niches and commuters: LinkedIn and YouTube.
• Use tight geo-targeting, modest frequency caps, and creative with recognizable landmarks and lake imagery to reduce ad fatigue in a finite audience.