Red River County

Key demographics — Red River County, Texas

Population

• Total population: 11,587 (2020 Census)

Age

• Median age: ~46 years
• Under 18: ~21%
• 18–64: ~55%
• 65 and over: ~24%

Gender

• Female: ~50.5%
• Male: ~49.5%

Race/ethnicity (mutually consistent categories)

• White, non-Hispanic: ~69%
• Black or African American, non-Hispanic: ~17%
• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~9%
• Two or more races, non-Hispanic: ~4%
• American Indian/Alaska Native, non-Hispanic: ~1%
• Asian, non-Hispanic: <1%

Households and housing

• Households: ~4,800
• Average household size: ~2.4
• Family households: ~63%; married-couple families: ~47%
• Owner-occupied housing rate: ~77–79%
• Median home value: ~$100K
• Median gross rent: ~$700
• Median household income: ~$48K
• Persons in poverty: ~18–20%

Insights

• Small, aging, rural county with a sizable older-adult share (≈1 in 4 residents 65+).
• Predominantly non-Hispanic White with notable Black and growing Hispanic populations.
• Household incomes below national median; high owner-occupancy and modest housing costs.

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

Red River County, TX email usage snapshot

• Population and density: ≈11.6k residents; ≈11 residents per square mile across ~1,050 sq mi.
• Estimated email users: ≈6,600 residents actively use email (≈57% of total population; ≈72% of adults).
• Age distribution of email users: 18–34: 22%; 35–54: 33%; 55–64: 18%; 65+: 27%.
• Gender split among email users: ≈51% female, 49% male.

Digital access and connectivity

• Households with a computer: ~83%.
• Households with a broadband subscription: ~68%; about 22% have no home internet.
• Smartphone‑only internet: ~13% of households, a growing access mode for email.
• Connectivity is uneven outside Clarksville and main corridors due to low settlement density, which raises last‑mile costs and limits fixed high‑speed options; residents rely on mobile data, public libraries, schools, and community Wi‑Fi to bridge gaps.

Insights

• Email reach is broad but constrained primarily by home internet availability; mobile‑friendly email is essential given smartphone‑reliant households.
• Older residents (55+) now represent nearly half of local email users, reflecting steady adoption, but absolute non‑use remains concentrated where fixed broadband is unavailable.

Mobile phone usage in Red River County, Texas — 2024 snapshot

At-a-glance context

• Population and density: 11,587 residents (2020 Census) across 1,056 sq mi (~11 people/sq mi), indicating sparse, rural density that materially affects radio coverage and adoption patterns.
• Adult population (estimate): ~8,900 adults (≈78% of residents), reflecting an older age profile than Texas overall.

User estimates (modeled)

• Adults using any mobile phone: ~8,500 (≈96% of adults), closely tracking national levels but with more basic/feature-phone users among seniors than statewide.
• Adult smartphone users: ~7,300 (≈82% of adults), a few percentage points below Texas’ high‑80s average due to the county’s older population and lower incomes.
• Households relying on cellular-only internet: 1,000 households (≈21% of households), higher than the Texas average (13%), indicating greater dependence on mobile data where fixed broadband is limited.

Demographic breakdown (modeled counts and rates)

• Ages 18–34: 2,300 adults; smartphone use ≈95% (2,150 users). Near parity with state levels.
• Ages 35–64: 3,900 adults; smartphone use ≈90% (3,480 users). Slightly below state averages but broadly similar.
• Ages 65+: 2,700 adults; smartphone use ≈61% (1,660 users). 10–15 points lower than Texas seniors overall, driving most of the county’s gap versus the state.

Digital infrastructure highlights

• Carrier presence: AT&T, T‑Mobile, and Verizon operate countywide networks; MVNOs ride these same networks. Coverage continuity is strong along US‑82, US‑271, and state routes; fringe areas exist along the Red River bottomlands and in heavily wooded terrain.
• 4G/5G footprint: 4G LTE is the baseline everywhere population is concentrated. 5G is present in and around Clarksville and other towns, primarily low‑band for wide‑area coverage; mid‑band 5G capacity is limited relative to Texas metros, so peak speeds and indoor penetration are more variable.
• Backhaul and siting: Fewer macro sites per square mile than Texas urban/suburban counties because of low density; carriers lean on taller sites and low‑band spectrum for reach, trading off capacity. This topology contributes to higher cellular‑only internet reliance but also to more frequent capacity constraints during peak hours.

How Red River County differs from Texas overall

• Lower smartphone penetration: ~82% of adults vs high‑80s statewide, concentrated in the 65+ segment.
• Higher cellular-only internet dependence: ~21% of households vs ~13% statewide, reflecting sparser fixed broadband and greater use of mobile data as the primary connection.
• 5G capacity profile: Coverage exists, but it is more low‑band and less mid‑band than the state average, so users see wider coverage but lower typical 5G capacity than in Texas metros.
• Device mix: A measurably higher share of basic/legacy handsets among seniors than statewide, which dampens app-centric usage and mobile commerce relative to Texas averages.

Implications

• Network planning: Additional mid‑band 5G sectors and infill sites near population clusters would alleviate capacity bottlenecks and narrow the experience gap with state norms.
• Digital equity: The larger cellular‑only segment means zero‑rating, affordable mobile plans, and reliable indoor coverage matter more here than elsewhere in Texas.
• Service design: SMS/voice-first and offline-capable app experiences will reach more residents than data-heavy, always-connected designs.

Notes on methodology

• Counts are modeled from the 2020 Census base population, typical rural Texas age structure, and 2023–2024 national adoption benchmarks (e.g., ~96% adult mobile phone use; ~61% smartphone adoption among seniors; ~90–95% among non-seniors). Household cellular-only share reflects ACS Computer & Internet Use patterns for rural Texas counties versus statewide. Figures are rounded for clarity.

Red River County, TX social media snapshot (2025, modeled)

Population base

• Total population: ≈11,600 (2020 Census)
• Estimated social media users: ≈7,900 residents (≈68% of total population; ≈80% of adults)
• Daily users: ≈65% of social media users (≈5,100) use at least once per day
• Primary access: ≈60% primarily on smartphones; ≈20% are smartphone‑only

User composition

• By age (share of local social media users)
  • 13–17: 8% (≈630)
  • 18–29: 19% (≈1,500)
  • 30–49: 33% (≈2,600)
  • 50–64: 24% (≈1,900)
  • 65+: 16% (≈1,260)
• By gender (share of local social media users)
  • Female: 52% (≈4,100)
  • Male: 48% (≈3,800)

Most‑used platforms among local social media users

• YouTube: 84% (≈6,640)
• Facebook: 66% (≈5,210)
• Instagram: 50% (≈3,950)
• TikTok: 38% (≈3,000)
• Snapchat: 35% (≈2,760)
• Pinterest: 31% (≈2,450)
• WhatsApp: 27% (≈2,130)
• X (Twitter): 20% (≈1,580)
• Reddit: 18% (≈1,420)
• Nextdoor: 10% (≈790) Notes: Facebook Groups participation ≈70% of local Facebook users; Instagram and TikTok skew younger; Pinterest skews female; Reddit, X, YouTube skew male.

Behavioral trends and usage patterns

• Community and commerce: Facebook Groups and Marketplace are central for local news, school updates, events, church activities, and buy/sell/trade. Engagement spikes around local sports, weather, road closures, and hunting/fishing seasons.
• Video‑first consumption: Short‑form video (Reels/TikTok) is the growth format for under‑35; long‑form and how‑to content on YouTube is strong across 30–64, especially around DIY, auto repair, farm/ranch, and home improvement.
• Messaging over public posting: Heavy reliance on Messenger/Snapchat for private sharing; public posting rates are lower, but comment activity on local pages is high during timely events.
• Time‑of‑day: Highest engagement typically early morning (6–8 a.m.) and evening (7–9 p.m.), with weekend mid‑day bumps.
• Older‑adult footprint: Facebook remains the anchor platform for 50+, with steady YouTube use for news and tutorials; TikTok/Instagram adoption among 50+ is growing but still a minority.
• Youth behavior: 13–24 rely on Snapchat for daily communication; TikTok/Instagram for entertainment, music, and local highlights; minimal use of Facebook except for Groups or school/sports updates.
• Discovery and search: Younger users increasingly “search” via TikTok/Instagram for local food and services; 30–64 still rely on Google/Maps but cross‑check on Facebook pages and Groups.
• Trust and validation: Local content, familiar faces, and user‑generated video outperform polished ads; testimonials and before/after visuals drive conversions.
• Device and bandwidth: Mobile‑first behaviors predominate; shorter videos (sub‑60s) and compressed/vertical formats perform better due to variable rural connectivity.

Method and sources

• Figures are modeled for 2025 by scaling Pew Research Center 2024 U.S. platform adoption rates by age and gender to the Red River County population (U.S. Census 2020 base), with adjustments typical of rural counties (smartphone‑first, older median age). Counts are rounded and should be interpreted as best‑available local estimates.