Scurry County

Key demographics for Scurry County, Texas (most recent Census/ACS data):

Population

• Total: 16,921 (2020 Census)

Age

• Median age: ~34 years
• Under 18: ~26%
• 65 and over: ~14%

Gender

• Male: ~53%
• Female: ~47%

Race/Ethnicity

• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~50%
• White alone, not Hispanic: ~43–44%
• Black or African American: ~5–6%
• American Indian/Alaska Native: ~1%
• Asian: <1%
• Two or more races: ~2–3%

Households

• Total households: ~5,800–5,900
• Average household size: ~2.7–2.8
• Family households: ~70–72% of households
• Married-couple families: ~50% of households
• Households with children under 18: ~35–36%
• Individuals living alone: ~25% (about 9% age 65+)

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

Scurry County, TX snapshot

• Population: ~16,800 across ~900 sq mi (≈18 people/sq mi), centered in Snyder with sparse outlying ranchland.
• Estimated email users: ≈12,300 residents (≈73% of total population; ≈92% of adults).
• Age distribution of email users (share of users): 18–29: ~19%; 30–49: ~36%; 50–64: ~27%; 65+: ~18%. Teen (13–17) uptake is high but smaller in count.
• Gender split among users: ~51% female, ~49% male, mirroring local demographics.
• Digital access and trends:
  • Household broadband subscription: ≈85–87%, up several points since 2019, driven by upgrades in Snyder.
  • Fixed 100 Mbps+ broadband available to roughly 85–90% of addresses; fiber reaches ~30–40% (highest in town). Outside urban clusters, many rely on cable, fixed wireless, or satellite.
  • Smartphone-only internet users: ~15–20%, elevating mobile-first email access.
  • Public Wi‑Fi is concentrated at schools, the library, and municipal facilities, partially offsetting rural coverage gaps.

Implications: Email is a near-universal channel for adults, with strongest engagement among 30–64. Coverage and speed are markedly better in Snyder than in low-density areas, where fixed wireless and satellite sustain access but can depress heavy email attachments and real‑time usage.

Scurry County, TX mobile phone usage: summary with county-specific estimates and how they differ from statewide patterns

Population context

• Residents: about 16.7–17.0 thousand; households: about 6.2–6.5 thousand; adults (18+): about 12.5–12.9 thousand (U.S. Census/ACS 2020–2023)

User and device estimates

• Adult smartphone owners: 10.8–11.3 thousand (roughly 86–89% of adults). This trails Texas (about 89–90%) by a couple of points, consistent with rural ownership gaps seen in national surveys.
• Wireless-only telephone households (no landline): 4.6–5.0 thousand households (about 74–79%). This is slightly above the Texas average (about mid-70s), reflecting strong mobile substitution in smaller, rural markets.
• Households using cellular as their primary home internet (cellular data plan at home, with no fixed broadband): roughly 0.8–1.0 thousand households (about 13–16% of households), measurably higher than the Texas average (about 8–10%). This aligns with more limited fixed-broadband options outside Snyder.
• Prepaid share of mobile lines: approximately 30–35%, above the Texas mix (roughly high-20s), driven by price sensitivity and credit preferences typical of rural markets.

Demographic breakdown and usage patterns

• Age: Seniors (65+) are a smaller share of smartphone adopters (roughly low- to mid-60% adoption) than Texas seniors (upper-60s to low-70s). Younger working-age adults and families drive most data use and mobile-only home connectivity.
• Race/ethnicity: A large Hispanic/Latino community (around two-fifths of residents) contributes to higher mobile-only telephone and home-internet reliance than the state average, with above-average use of prepaid and family plans. Non-Hispanic White residents make up roughly half, with smaller Black and other groups.
• Income and education: Median household income is modest relative to metro Texas, and bachelor’s attainment is lower than the state average; both correlate with longer device replacement cycles, higher Android share, and greater use of prepaid and ad-supported plans. These factors reinforce stronger mobile substitution than in Texas overall.

Digital infrastructure

• Coverage and technology: AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon provide countywide 4G LTE. 5G low-band covers population centers and corridors; mid-band 5G is concentrated in and around Snyder and along US-84/US-180, with patchier reach across ranchland. Relative to Texas metros, mid-band 5G depth is thinner and fades more quickly outside town.
• Performance: In-town 5G median downloads typically range from high tens to low hundreds of Mbps (best on mid-band 5G where available). Outside Snyder, speeds drop into the teens to low tens of Mbps, with occasional dead zones in sparsely populated areas and terrain shadows. Texas metro medians are generally higher and more consistent.
• Capacity: Fewer macro sites per square mile than urban Texas and limited small-cell deployment lead to more pronounced evening congestion near schools, highways, and oilfield traffic routes.
• Backhaul and fixed access: Snyder benefits from local fiber and cable plant; beyond town, fixed options thin out, sustaining demand for mobile hotspots, LTE/5G home internet, and WISPs. This differs from many Texas counties near large metros where fiber and DOCSIS are more pervasive.
• Emergency and public networks: Schools, the county, and health facilities act as anchor institutions on fiber, improving in-town reliability. Rural first responders and energy-sector crews rely heavily on LTE/5G with priority services; coverage improvements along energy corridors materially affect daytime loads.

How Scurry County differs from Texas overall

• Higher mobile substitution: More households are wireless-only for voice and more use cellular as primary home internet than the Texas average.
• Slightly lower overall smartphone penetration, driven by older adults and income mix, but intensive usage among working-age adults offsets this in total traffic.
• More prepaid and budget-plan usage than Texas at large, shaping ARPU and churn patterns.
• Less uniform 5G mid-band coverage and more pronounced urban–rural performance gaps; speed variability and capacity constraints are more common than in metro Texas.
• Greater dependence on mobile connectivity for work (energy, agriculture, logistics) and education outside fiber/cable footprints.

Bottom line Scurry County’s mobile market is defined by strong mobile substitution, heavier reliance on cellular for home internet, a higher prepaid mix, and greater performance variability than Texas overall. In-town 5G is competitive, but coverage depth and capacity thin rapidly outside Snyder, keeping mobile connectivity both essential and more variable than the statewide norm.

Social media usage snapshot: Scurry County, Texas (2025)

How the numbers were derived:

• No platform publishes county-level user counts. Figures below are modeled from U.S. Census (2020 population: 16,921) combined with national/rural benchmarks from Pew Research Center (2024) and DataReportal (2024), scaled to a rural West Texas county. Ranges reflect uncertainty and seasonal variation.

User stats

• Estimated social media users (13+): 11,800–12,700 (≈70–75% of residents)
• Internet-connected households: majority; rural Texas benchmarks indicate solid broadband/mobile access but with pockets of lower fixed broadband and heavier mobile-only use

Age patterns (probability of using at least one platform)

• Teens (13–17): 90%+
• 18–29: 83–90%
• 30–49: 80–85%
• 50–64: 70–75%
• 65+: 45–55% Interpretation: near-universal use among under-30s; strong but more selective use in 30–64; sizable 65+ presence, concentrated on Facebook and YouTube.

Gender breakdown (share of active users by platform; expected range)

• Overall social media user base: roughly balanced female/male
• Facebook: 55–60% female, 40–45% male
• Instagram: 55–60% female, 40–45% male
• TikTok: 57–60% female, 40–43% male
• YouTube: 40–45% female, 55–60% male
• X (Twitter): 40–45% female, 55–60% male Note: Reflects persistent national skews that are typically stronger in rural markets.

Most-used platforms locally (share of 13+ residents using each)

• YouTube: 75–80%
• Facebook: 60–70%
• Instagram: 40–45%
• TikTok: 30–40%
• Snapchat: 25–35% (concentrated among teens/younger adults)
• WhatsApp: 20–30% (higher where Hispanic/Latino share is larger)
• X (Twitter): 15–20%
• LinkedIn: 12–18% (lower in rural, trades/oilfield-heavy labor markets)

Behavioral trends and practical implications

• Facebook as the local hub: High engagement with community groups, school and church pages, buy/sell groups, local government and safety updates. Events and live video perform well.
• Video-first habits: YouTube for how‑to, repairs, hunting/outdoors, youth sports highlights; TikTok/Reels for short, personality-driven local content. Cross-posting TikTok to Reels extends reach.
• Messaging reliance: Facebook Messenger is the default; WhatsApp active within Spanish-speaking households and multi-state work networks; group chats organize teams and school activities.
• Small-business marketing: Local services (HVAC, auto, ag, trades) lean on Facebook posts/boosted Events; Instagram used for visuals (food, boutiques, salons). Authentic, place-based creative outperforms polished generic ads.
• News and alerts: Weather, road conditions, school closings, and high school sports drive spikes. Evenings and weekends see higher engagement; school-year calendars shape teen/parent activity.
• Platform niches: Snapchat for teen daily communication; X for statewide news/sports monitoring; LinkedIn mainly for healthcare, education admin, and oilfield professionals seeking roles.

Key takeaways

• Prioritize Facebook and YouTube for countywide reach; add Instagram for 18–34 and TikTok to reach under‑30s.
• Use short vertical video, community-centric messaging, and clear calls to action (Events, phone, Messenger).
• Schedule around evenings/weekends; boost during local moments (games, fairs, weather events).
• Consider bilingual/Spanish creative where relevant; WhatsApp can support customer service or group coordination.

Sources informing estimates: U.S. Census (2020), Pew Research Center social media use (2024), DataReportal Digital 2024 (USA), and rural-urban usage differentials observed by Pew.