Hopkins County

Hopkins County, Texas — key demographics

Population size

• 36,787 (2020 Census)

Age

• Median age: about 40 years (ACS 2019–2023)
• Under 18: ~24%
• 18 to 64: ~58%
• 65 and over: ~18%

Gender

• Female: ~51%
• Male: ~49%

Racial/ethnic composition (share of total population)

• Non-Hispanic White: ~67%
• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~18%
• Black or African American: ~8%
• Two or more races: ~4%
• Asian: ~1%
• Other race/Native American/Pacific Islander combined: ~2%

Household data

• Households: ~14,300
• Average household size: ~2.6 persons
• Family households: ~66% of households
• Owner-occupied housing: ~70%
• Renter-occupied housing: ~30%
• Households with children under 18: ~30%

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (2020 Decennial Census; 2019–2023 American Community Survey 5-year estimates)

Hopkins County, Texas email usage snapshot (2025 est.)

• Estimated email users: ~27,000 residents. Method: ~37,000 population, ~77% adults, and ~92% of adults use email.
• Age adoption rates (share of people in each group who use email):
  • 18–29: ~96%
  • 30–49: ~95%
  • 50–64: ~90%
  • 65+: ~80%
• Gender split among users: ~51% female, ~49% male (mirrors county demographics).
• Digital access and trends:
  • Household broadband subscription: ~85% (ACS-style measure, includes cable, fiber, or DSL).
  • Smartphone-only internet households: ~12%, indicating a notable mobile-first segment.
  • Connectivity is strongest in and around Sulphur Springs (greater cable/fiber availability); outlying rural areas rely more on DSL and fixed wireless, with slower uplinks.
  • Public libraries, schools, and county facilities serve as important access points for lower-income and rural residents.
• Local density/connectivity facts:
  • Population density ≈ 45–50 residents per square mile across ~790 square miles, typical of rural Texas and correlated with patchier last‑mile infrastructure.
  • Continued fiber buildouts are improving speeds along primary corridors, narrowing—but not eliminating—the urban–rural gap.

Implication: Email is near-universal among connected adults, with slightly lower adoption among seniors and a meaningful mobile-only cohort shaping communication preferences.

Mobile phone usage in Hopkins County, Texas — 2024 snapshot

High-level takeaways

• Hopkins County is a high–mobile-usage, largely rural market with strong coverage and capacity along the I-30/Sulphur Springs corridor and more variable performance in outlying areas.
• Relative to Texas overall, the county shows greater reliance on cellular service for home internet, a higher share of prepaid plans, and slightly lower smartphone adoption among older adults.
• 5G mid-band is present on major corridors, but LTE remains the workhorse in many low-density tracts.

User estimates (people, not SIMs)

• Population baseline: 36,787 (2020 Census).
• Unique mobile phone users (any mobile device): 29,000–32,000 residents (roughly 79–87% of the total population), reflecting high adult penetration and widespread teen adoption.
• Smartphone users: 26,000–29,000 residents (roughly 71–79% of the total population; 86–90% of adults). These modeled 2023–2024 estimates combine Census/ACS demographics with recent Pew smartphone adoption by age.

Demographic breakdown of usage (modeled 2023–2024)

• By age
  • 18–34: 94–97% smartphone adoption; near parity with Texas.
  • 35–64: 88–92% smartphone adoption; 1–3 percentage points below Texas.
  • 65+: 72–78% smartphone adoption; 3–6 percentage points below Texas. Basic/feature-phone use is concentrated here.
• By income and plan type
  • Prepaid plans: 32–38% of lines, notably higher than Texas (roughly mid-20s percent), reflecting income mix and credit preferences.
  • Cellular-only home internet households: 10–13% versus ~7–9% statewide, indicating heavier dependence on mobile data for primary connectivity in areas without affordable wired broadband.
• By device ecosystem (inferred from rural Texas patterns)
  • Android share is higher than the Texas average, driven by prepaid and value device tiers; iPhone share trails the large-metro mix.

Digital infrastructure and performance

• Networks and coverage
  • All three national carriers (AT&T, T‑Mobile, Verizon) operate countywide. 5G mid-band overlays cover Sulphur Springs, I‑30, and other higher-traffic corridors; low-band 5G/LTE covers most populated areas. LTE dominates in the lowest-density tracts and around certain lake/wooded areas.
  • FirstNet (AT&T) serves public-safety users; commercial users benefit indirectly from overlapping macro sites.
• Performance patterns (crowd-measurement and rural-Texas benchmarks, 2023–2024)
  • 5G mid-band near Sulphur Springs/I‑30: commonly 100–300 Mbps down, single‑digit to low‑teens ms airlink latency.
  • LTE in rural fringe: often 5–30 Mbps down with higher variability; uplink can be the bottleneck for video and hotspot use.
  • In-building performance remains sensitive to construction type and distance from the corridor; boosters and Wi‑Fi calling are common mitigations in metal-roof structures.
• Capacity and traffic
  • Peak-time slowdowns are pronounced around schools, event venues, and highway interchanges; off-peak performance is substantially better.
  • Fixed wireless access (5G/LTE home internet) from major carriers is available in and around Sulphur Springs and is growing along transport corridors; adoption is increasing where cable/fiber are limited or costly.

How Hopkins County differs from Texas overall

• Higher cellular dependence: More households rely on cellular data as their primary or backup home internet option than the Texas average.
• Plan mix skews prepaid: A larger share of lines are prepaid/value tiers, tied to income mix and device affordability preferences.
• Older-adult gap: Smartphone adoption among residents 65+ is several points lower than the statewide rate; basic-phone retention is correspondingly higher.
• Coverage uniformity: Statewide, 5G mid-band is becoming common across metros and suburban belts; in Hopkins County, that grade of 5G is largely corridor-centric, with LTE persisting across much of the rural footprint.
• Device ecosystem: A relative tilt toward Android/value OEMs compared with large Texas metros that skew more iPhone.

Methodological notes

• Population and age structure are anchored to the 2020 Census and recent ACS 5‑year releases. Smartphone ownership rates by age are applied from current national/state survey benchmarks (e.g., Pew) to the county’s age mix. Cellular‑only home internet and prepaid share are derived by scaling ACS S2801-style subscription patterns and carrier market reports to rural‑county profiles. Coverage/performance characterizations synthesize FCC mobile coverage filings and crowd‑sourced speed testing common to East/Northeast Texas counties with similar topology. Figures are best-available 2023–2024 estimates intended for planning-level accuracy.

Social media in Hopkins County, TX (modeled 2025 snapshot)

How these figures were derived

• Percentages are modeled local estimates for Hopkins County’s rural profile, using 2024 Pew Research Center national social platform usage, rural vs. urban differentials, and age/gender skews applied to a typical rural Texas age mix (ACS). They are suitable for planning but not a substitute for a local survey.

Overall user stats

• Adults using at least one social platform: 78–82%
• Daily social users (any platform): 60–65% of adults
• Primary device: mobile-first; video is the dominant format across platforms

Most-used platforms (adults; use at least monthly)

• YouTube: 75–80%
• Facebook: 66–70%
• Instagram: 30–36%
• Pinterest: 30–35%
• TikTok: 28–33%
• Snapchat: 26–31%
• WhatsApp: 14–18%
• X (Twitter): 14–18%
• LinkedIn: 16–20%
• Reddit: 12–16%
• Nextdoor: 5–8% (coverage patchy; Facebook Groups substitute for neighborhood forums)

Age-group patterns (adults)

• 18–29: YouTube 88–92%; Instagram 65–72%; Snapchat 58–64%; TikTok 58–64%; Facebook 45–52%. Heavy use of short-form video; Snapchat and Instagram DMs for messaging.
• 30–49: Facebook 70–76%; YouTube 82–88%; Instagram 40–48%; TikTok 32–40%. Uses Facebook Groups, Marketplace, Reels; YouTube for how‑to and product research.
• 50–64: Facebook 68–74%; YouTube 72–78%; Instagram 22–28%; TikTok 18–24%. Facebook is the hub for local news, community updates, and events.
• 65+: Facebook 58–64%; YouTube 58–64%; Instagram 12–18%; TikTok 8–14%. Primarily passive consumption; share/click behavior on local news and community posts.
• Teens (context only): Very high Snapchat/TikTok usage for communication and entertainment; Facebook minimal except for school, sports, church, and family updates.

Gender breakdown (tendencies among platform users)

• Facebook: slight female lean (female ~54–58% of users)
• Instagram: female lean (~55–60%)
• Pinterest: strongly female (≈70–75%)
• TikTok: slight female lean (~52–56%)
• Snapchat: slight female lean (~52–56%)
• YouTube: slight male lean (~55–60%)
• Reddit: male‑skewed (~65–70%)
• X (Twitter): male‑skewed (~60–65%)
• LinkedIn: slight male lean (~55%)

Behavioral trends specific to a rural county like Hopkins

• Community hubs on Facebook: High engagement in local groups (schools, churches, yard sales, lost/found pets, weather and emergency updates, high school sports). Group posts and live streams outperform standard Page updates.
• Marketplace matters: Strong buy/sell activity; meetups arranged locally; cross‑posting to nearby counties expands reach.
• Short‑form video wins: Facebook Reels, Instagram Reels, and TikTok drive outsized reach for local businesses, events, and sports highlights; under-40 users prefer vertical video and creator‑style storytelling.
• Messaging shifts: Many transactions and customer service interactions move to Facebook Messenger and Instagram DMs; Snapchat dominates day‑to‑day messaging for under‑30s. WhatsApp adoption is modest but higher among bilingual and Hispanic households.
• Local news and civic info: Sheriff’s office, city/county agencies, schools, and local media primarily use Facebook; weather alerts and road incidents spike sharing and comment activity.
• Timing: Engagement peaks early morning (6–8 a.m.) and evenings (7–10 p.m.), with weekend surges around games, church activities, and community events.
• Content that performs:
  • People and place: faces, staff spotlights, local landmarks, school and church activities
  • Utility: how‑to, home/auto repair tips, farm/ranch content, local service explainers
  • Offers: limited‑time promos, giveaways, and event announcements
• Advertising patterns: “Boosted” Facebook posts targeted within 15–30 miles remain cost‑effective; lookalikes into adjacent counties expand reach. Video + local context (“in Sulphur Springs this weekend…”) lifts click‑through.
• Platform roles:
  • Facebook = community, events, discovery, and service inquiries
  • YouTube = education/how‑to, longer highlights, and product research
  • Instagram/TikTok = reach and younger demos via short video
  • Pinterest = home, food, crafts; strong with women 25–54
  • LinkedIn = niche (healthcare, education, logistics); recruiting more than marketing
  • X/Reddit = niche audiences; limited broad local reach
  • Nextdoor = limited footprint; neighborhoods often default to Facebook Groups

Notes for planning

• Use Facebook + Reels as the backbone; add Instagram for under‑40 reach and YouTube for durable search/video value.
• Lean into groups, events, and Marketplace for organic distribution; answer DMs quickly to convert.
• Localize creative (people, places, schedules) and post around morning/evening peaks.
• Measure with platform insights and A/B test 15–30 mile radius targeting to account for cross‑county travel patterns.