Madison County

Key demographics — Madison County, Texas

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (2020 Decennial Census; 2019–2023 ACS 5-year; 2023 Population Estimates Program)

• Population

  • 2023 estimate: ~14.3K
  • 2020 Census: ~13.5K

• Age

  • Median age: ~35 years
  • Under 18: ~20%
  • 65 and over: ~14%

• Sex

  • Male: ~58%
  • Female: ~42%
  • Note: The county’s state prison population skews the sex balance toward male and inflates working-age shares.

• Race and Hispanic origin (percent of total population)

  • Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~27%
  • Non-Hispanic White: ~50%
  • Non-Hispanic Black or African American: ~19%
  • Other/Multiracial/Asian/AIAN combined: ~4%

• Households and housing

  • Households: ~4.7K
  • Average household size: ~2.6
  • Family households: ~70% of households
  • Owner-occupied housing rate: ~70–75%

Insights

• Small, slowly growing county with a relatively young, male-skewed profile due to incarceration effects.
• Racial/ethnic composition features a substantial Hispanic community and a higher Black share than the statewide rural average.
• Household structure is predominantly family-based with high owner-occupancy typical of rural Texas.

Email usage snapshot: Madison County, Texas

• Population and density: ~14.6K residents; ~31 people per square mile.
• Estimated email users: ~11.3K total users (≈10.2K adults, plus ~1.1K teens), based on national email adoption benchmarks applied to local population.
• Age distribution (adoption rates among residents by age): 18–29: ~98%; 30–49: ~96%; 50–64: ~90%; 65+: ~75%. Given the county’s older-skewing profile, roughly half of email users are 30–64 and about one quarter are 65+.
• Gender split: Near parity; ~51% female, ~49% male among email users, mirroring the adult population.
• Digital access and trends:
  • Broadband subscription: ~75–80% of households subscribe to broadband; ~15–20% have no home internet subscription.
  • Device access: ~85–90% of households have a computer; ~8–12% are smartphone-only for internet.
  • Access patterns: Reliance on mobile data is higher in rural areas; fixed high-speed options cluster in and around Madisonville and along the I‑45 corridor, with patchier wired coverage in sparsely populated areas.
• Insight: High adult email penetration is tempered by lower adoption among seniors and pockets of limited home broadband; mobile connectivity substantially bridges the gap for everyday email access.

Mobile phone usage in Madison County, Texas — 2024 snapshot

User estimates (derived from ACS population and recent statewide/rural adoption benchmarks)

• Population base: roughly 14,000 residents; about 10,600 adults (18+).
• Adult cellphone users: approximately 10,000–10,300 (≈94–97% of adults use a mobile phone).
• Adult smartphone users: approximately 8,500–9,000 (≈80–85% of adults use a smartphone).
• Lines in service: roughly 16,000–18,000 active mobile subscriptions in the county (≈115–130 lines per 100 residents), below Texas’ statewide density (≈140–160 per 100).

Demographic breakdown and effects on usage

• Age: A larger rural-and-commuter mix yields strong adoption among 18–44, but a modestly lower uptake among 65+ than the Texas average. Expect ≈95% smartphone adoption among 18–34, ≈85–90% among 35–64, and ≈70–75% among 65+.
• Income and education: Median household income is below the Texas average, and bachelor’s attainment is lower. This drives higher reliance on prepaid plans, budget Android devices, and shared/family plans; postpaid/flagship-device share is lower than in metropolitan Texas.
• Race/ethnicity: The county’s population is majority White non-Hispanic with sizable Hispanic and Black communities. Smartphone ownership is widespread across groups, but smartphone-only home internet reliance is higher among lower-income and Hispanic households than the state average.
• Work/commute pattern: Heavy travel along I‑45 (Madisonville corridor) means coverage and capacity on that route shape usage more than in-town Wi‑Fi. Voice, SMS, and navigation see above-average use relative to app-based calling typical in urban Texas.

Digital infrastructure highlights

• Coverage: All three national carriers operate here. 5G low-band coverage reaches the population centers and major corridors; mid-band 5G (higher capacity) is concentrated in and around Madisonville and along I‑45, with patchier availability on rural farm-to-market roads.
• Capacity and backhaul: Fiber-fed macro sites cluster near I‑45 and the city core; many outlying sectors rely on low-band spectrum and longer-range sectors, which limits peak speeds and in-building performance compared with Texas metro areas.
• Fixed broadband overlap: Cable and fiber options are strongest in Madisonville; outside the city, choices thin out to fixed wireless, legacy DSL, or satellite. As a result, an estimated 28–34% of households are smartphone-only for home internet (vs roughly 20–24% statewide), and hotspot use for homework and remote work is materially higher than the Texas average.
• Public-safety and enterprise: FirstNet/AT&T coverage improvements along the interstate and around civic facilities have increased reliability for first responders; this spillover benefits general users near those nodes but does not fully close rural capacity gaps.

How Madison County differs from Texas overall

• Slightly lower smartphone penetration but markedly higher smartphone-only home internet reliance, reflecting gaps in fixed broadband outside Madisonville.
• Higher share of prepaid and budget-device users; iPhone share is lower and Android share higher than statewide urban markets.
• Heavier dependence on corridor coverage (I‑45) and low-band spectrum; mid-band 5G capacity is spottier than in metro Texas, keeping median speeds lower and making performance more variable indoors and on lateral rural roads.
• Usage mix skews more toward voice/SMS, navigation, and messaging and less toward high-bitrate video streaming than in large cities, though video and social remain top applications.
• Network experience shows bigger town-to-country divides: users in Madisonville and along I‑45 see near-metro reliability, while outlying areas encounter more dead zones and lower peak throughput.

Key takeaways

• Around 9,000 adult smartphone users and 10,000+ adult mobile users underpin a county mobile market that is smaller but highly reliant on cellular for everyday connectivity.
• Infrastructure is solid on the interstate and in town but capacity-limited in rural sectors; this drives higher prepaid adoption, hotspot use, and smartphone-only internet compared with the Texas average.
• The gap with statewide performance is narrowing as mid-band 5G extends beyond the corridor, but coverage/capacity asymmetry remains the defining local trend.

Social media usage in Madison County, TX (2025 snapshot)

Overall penetration

• Adults using at least one social platform: ~83% of residents age 18+ (modeled local estimate)

Most‑used platforms among adults (share of residents age 18+)

• YouTube: 82%
• Facebook: 72%
• Instagram: 42%
• TikTok: 30%
• Pinterest: 32%
• Snapchat: 25%
• X (Twitter): 20%
• LinkedIn: 20%
• Reddit: 16%

Age groups (share using any social media)

• 18–29: 95%
• 30–49: 90%
• 50–64: 78%
• 65+: 46%

Gender breakdown (of social media users)

• Women: 53%
• Men: 47%

Behavioral trends

• Community and information hubs: Facebook remains the default for local news, school athletics, churches, civic alerts, and buy/sell/Marketplace groups; posts featuring recognizable people, places, or events drive outsized engagement
• Video-first consumption: Short-form video (Reels, TikTok, YouTube Shorts) is the most effective content format; cross-posting the same short video across platforms is common and performs well
• Messaging: Facebook Messenger is the primary direct channel; Snapchat is dominant among teens/young adults for daily communication; WhatsApp use is limited
• Shopping and services: Heavy use of Facebook Marketplace and local buy/sell/trade groups for vehicles, equipment, livestock, and household goods; service providers (home, auto, ranch) rely on recommendations in local groups
• Timing and cadence: Engagement peaks evenings (6–9 pm CT) and weekends; local weekday mornings see quick “check-in” spikes before 9 am
• Geo-local relevance: Content and ads perform best when geofenced to the Madisonville area and nearby towns along the I‑45 corridor; “near me” utility posts (hours, directions, phone) convert well on Facebook and Google/YouTube
• Platform roles by age:
  • Under 30: Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok for daily socializing and local sports/activities
  • 30–49: Facebook for groups/events/Marketplace; Instagram for brands and creators; YouTube for how‑tos
  • 50+: Facebook and YouTube for local updates, faith content, hunting/DIY/how‑to, and family photos
• Creative cues that work: Faces over graphics, plain-language captions, vertical video (9:16), and post copy that names the town, school, team, or road/intersection

Method notes

• Figures are modeled local estimates for Madison County by applying 2024 Pew Research Center U.S. adult adoption rates to the county’s adult population and adjusting modestly for rural usage patterns (Facebook higher, LinkedIn lower). This provides actionable, county‑level percentages where direct county surveys are not published. Sources: Pew Research Center (2024 Social Media Use), U.S. Census/ACS for population structure.