Lamar County

Key demographics for Lamar County, Texas

Population size

• 50,088 (2020 Decennial Census)

Age

• Median age: ~40.6 years (ACS 2019–2023)
• Under 18: ~23%
• 18 to 64: ~58%
• 65 and over: ~19%

Gender

• Female: ~51%
• Male: ~49% (ACS 2019–2023)

Racial and ethnic composition (share of total population)

• White alone: ~74.9%
• Black or African American alone: ~13.9%
• American Indian and Alaska Native alone: ~1.7%
• Asian alone: ~0.8%
• Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone: ~0.1%
• Some other race alone: ~2.6%
• Two or more races: ~6.0%
• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~10–11%
• Non-Hispanic White: ~68% (2020 Census/ACS)

Households

• Total households: ~19,800
• Average household size: ~2.45 persons
• Family households: ~65% of households
• Married-couple households: ~47%
• Households with children under 18: ~27–28% (ACS 2019–2023)

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

• Scope: Lamar County, TX (pop. 50,088; 2020 Census). Density ≈55 people/sq mi; Paris (~25,000) concentrates most connectivity.
• Estimated email users: ≈33,200 adults. Method: adults ≈77% of population × 93% internet use × 92% email use among online adults ≈ 0.86 of adults.
• Age distribution of email users:
  • 18–29: 17%
  • 30–49: 37%
  • 50–64: 24%
  • 65+: 21%
• Gender split of email users: ≈51% female, 49% male (mirrors local adult demographics; email adoption is similar by gender).
• Digital access and connectivity:
  • Households with a computer: ~90%.
  • Households with a broadband subscription: ~82%.
  • Households without any internet subscription: ~15–18%.
  • FCC mapping indicates near-universal 25/3 Mbps availability and roughly 90% coverage at 100/20 Mbps; adoption lags availability outside Paris due to rural last‑mile gaps.
• Trends and insights:
  • Email is effectively universal among connected adults; usage is most concentrated in the 30–49 cohort.
  • Senior (65+) email adoption trails but represents over one‑fifth of users and is rising with improved broadband.
  • Paris drives fiber/cable uptake; outlying areas rely more on DSL/fixed‑wireless, correlating with lower email engagement and higher smartphone‑only reliance.

Mobile phone usage in Lamar County, Texas: key figures, differences from statewide patterns, and the infrastructure context

User estimates (2024)

• Population and adult base: ~50,000 residents; ~38,500 adults (18+).
• Adult mobile phone users (any cell phone): ~36,600 (≈95% of adults; rural U.S. benchmark).
• Adult smartphone users: ~32,800 (≈85% of adults; rural benchmark; lower than Texas’ large-metro rates near 90–92%).
• Teen smartphone users (13–17): ~2,800–3,000 (≈95% ownership in this age band).
• Combined smartphone users (adults + teens): ~35,600.
• Mobile-only home internet households: ~2,700–3,000, or roughly 13–15% of ~20,500 households, higher than Texas’ big-metro share.
• Households without any home internet subscription: roughly 17–19% (vs Texas statewide near the low teens), increasing reliance on mobile data for basic connectivity.

Demographic breakdown and usage patterns

• Age
  • 18–34: near-ubiquitous smartphone adoption (~95–98%); heavy app and video use; close to state norms.
  • 35–64: high adoption (~90–92%) but modestly below major Texas metros.
  • 65+: materially lower smartphone adoption (~60–70%), above feature-phone rates of the past but still well under Texas’ urban seniors; voice/SMS and larger-screen needs shape device choices.
• Income and education
  • A larger share of lower-income households than the Texas average correlates with:
    • Higher prepaid usage and more price-sensitive plan selection.
    • Above-average “smartphone-only” internet reliance (mobile data instead of home broadband).
• Race/ethnicity
  • County composition skews more non-Hispanic White and less Hispanic than Texas overall; Black and Hispanic residents in the county show high smartphone adoption comparable to statewide peers, and above-average smartphone-only home internet reliance relative to White households—mirroring national patterns.
• Urban vs rural within the county
  • Paris (city) usage looks closer to statewide norms (higher 5G availability, more home broadband).
  • Outlying rural tracts show lower smartphone adoption among older adults, more mobile-only home internet, and more reception variability indoors.

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• Carriers and radio layers
  • All three national carriers (AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile) provide 4G LTE coverage across the populated areas; low-band 5G covers Paris and major corridors first, with rural gaps more common than in Texas metros.
  • Mid-band 5G (e.g., n41/n77) is concentrated in and around Paris and along primary highways; mmWave is effectively an urban amenity and not a factor here.
• Capacity and performance
  • Median mobile download speeds in Lamar County trail Texas’ urban medians due to lower site density, more low-band dependence, and higher rural load variance; real-world performance is strongest in Paris and along US-82/US-271 and drops in sparsely populated tracts and inside metal-roof structures.
• Redundancy and public safety
  • AT&T’s FirstNet presence improves coverage and hardening for first responders; this footprint tends to boost AT&T’s rural reliability relative to pure commercial layers.
• Fixed broadband interplay
  • Home broadband subscription rates are several points lower than the Texas average, elevating the role of mobile data as a primary connection for schoolwork, telehealth, and commerce—especially in lower-income and rural households.

How Lamar County differs from Texas statewide trends

• Adoption levels: Adult smartphone adoption is a few points lower than Texas’ metro-heavy average, driven by older age structure and rural composition.
• Mobile-only reliance: Higher share of mobile-only home internet than the state average, reflecting lower fixed-broadband subscription rates.
• Network mix: Greater dependence on low-band LTE/5G for coverage; mid-band 5G depth and capacity are less pervasive than in Texas metros, yielding lower median speeds and more variability.
• Carrier dynamics: AT&T and Verizon’s geographic coverage advantages are more evident than in densely populated Texas markets; T-Mobile’s 5G footprint is present in population centers but has more rural gaps than in large metros.
• Usage profile: A larger segment of price-sensitive prepaid users and older adults results in a slightly higher share of voice/SMS-first usage and conservative data consumption compared with major Texas cities.

Implications

• Service planning: Expanding mid-band 5G to rural sectors and adding indoor coverage solutions in metal buildings will disproportionately improve user experience.
• Digital inclusion: Targeted subsidies and device/digital literacy programs for seniors and low-income households would close the smartphone and home internet gaps faster than in urban Texas.
• Public safety and resilience: Continued FirstNet build-out and multi-carrier redundancy on key corridors are critical for storm response and rural healthcare access.

Social media in Lamar County, TX (2025 snapshot)

Context and user base

• Population: roughly 50,000; median age about 42; older-than-average, largely rural/suburban around Paris, TX (U.S. Census Bureau).
• Internet access: most households have an internet subscription; broadband adoption in comparable rural Texas counties typically falls in the 75–85% range (ACS Computer and Internet Use).
• Share of adults using at least one social platform is high but slightly below the U.S. average due to age/rural mix.

Most-used platforms (estimated share of adults in Lamar County)

• YouTube: ~82%
• Facebook: ~70–75% (locally strongest)
• Instagram: ~40–45%
• Pinterest: ~30–35%
• TikTok: ~25–30%
• Snapchat: ~20–25%
• LinkedIn: ~20–25%
• X (Twitter): ~15–20%
• Reddit: ~15–20%
• WhatsApp: ~15–20%
• Nextdoor: ~12–15% (lower than national due to rural coverage) Method: Modeled from Pew Research Center’s 2024 U.S. adoption rates, adjusted slightly for Lamar County’s older/rural profile.

Age-group usage highlights (share of each age group using the platform)

• Ages 18–29: YouTube ~95%; Instagram ~70–80%; Snapchat ~60–65%; TikTok ~55–60%; Facebook ~45–55%.
• Ages 30–49: YouTube ~90%; Facebook ~70–80%; Instagram ~45–55%; TikTok/Snapchat ~30–40%.
• Ages 50–64: Facebook ~70–75%; YouTube ~75–85%; Instagram ~25–35%; TikTok ~15–25%.
• Ages 65+: Facebook ~55–65%; YouTube ~55–65%; Instagram ~15–25%; TikTok ~8–15%. Note: Mirrors national age patterns with slightly higher Facebook and lower TikTok/Snapchat among older cohorts.

Gender breakdown (directional patterns, consistent with Pew 2024)

• Women: higher Facebook and Instagram use; Pinterest particularly strong among women (~50%+). TikTok slightly higher among women than men.
• Men: higher Reddit and X usage; YouTube strong across both genders.

Behavioral trends observed in similar rural Texas markets (applicable locally)

• Community-first Facebook use: heavy engagement with local groups (schools, churches, civic orgs), and Facebook Events for local happenings.
• Facebook Marketplace is a primary buy/sell channel; strong local commerce behavior.
• Video growth: Reels/shorts drive reach on Facebook/Instagram; TikTok skews younger and is high time-on-platform despite smaller base.
• News and weather: spikes in engagement around storms, road closures, and school updates.
• Messaging: Facebook Messenger widely used for customer inquiries; WhatsApp adoption growing but still secondary.
• Timing: engagement peaks early morning (6–8 a.m.), lunch (12–1 p.m.), and evenings (7–9 p.m.); weekend afternoon spikes for community and Marketplace.
• Ads: best immediate reach via Facebook/Instagram with tight geo-targeting around Paris and nearby towns; older audience responds well to straightforward creative and clear CTAs; TikTok/Snapchat effective for awareness among 18–34.

Sources

• Pew Research Center, Social Media Use in 2024 (platform adoption by age/gender).
• U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (population and internet access). Note: County-level platform shares are modeled from the above, adjusted for Lamar County’s demographic profile. Actual platform counts can vary with platform availability and local adoption.