Upshur County

Upshur County, Texas – key demographics (latest available)

Population

• 2023 population estimate: ~42,000 (up from 40,892 in 2020 Census)
• Growth: modest increase since 2020

Age

• Median age: ~41–42
• Under 18: ~23%
• 18–64: ~58–60%
• 65 and over: ~19–20%

Sex

• Female: ~50–51%
• Male: ~49–50%

Race/ethnicity (shares of total population)

• White, non-Hispanic: ~73–75%
• Hispanic/Latino (any race): ~10–12%
• Black/African American, non-Hispanic: ~7–9%
• Two or more races, non-Hispanic: ~3–5%
• American Indian/Alaska Native, non-Hispanic: ~1%
• Asian, non-Hispanic: <1%
• Other, non-Hispanic: ~1%

Households and housing

• Households: ~15,500–16,000
• Average household size: ~2.6
• Family households: ~70–73% of households; married-couple families ~50–55%
• Households with children under 18: ~27–30%
• One-person households: ~23–26%
• Owner-occupied housing: ~75–80%; renter-occupied: ~20–25%

Notable insights

• Older age profile than the Texas average (higher 65+ share, median age ~41+).
• Predominantly non-Hispanic White with small but present Hispanic and Black communities.
• High homeownership relative to Texas overall; household sizes close to state averages.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program (2023) and American Community Survey 2019–2023 5-year estimates; 2020 Decennial Census. Estimates are rounded for clarity.

Upshur County, TX email landscape (estimates, 2022–2024):

• Population and density: ≈41,000 residents across ≈590 sq mi (≈70 people/sq mi).
• Estimated email users: ≈34,500 residents (≈84% of the population) use email at least occasionally.
• Age distribution of email users:
  • Under 18: ≈18–19% (~6.4k users)
  • 18–34: ≈20% (~7.0k)
  • 35–54: ≈30% (~10.2k)
  • 55–64: ≈14% (~4.8k)
  • 65+: ≈18% (~6.1k)
• Gender split among users: roughly even, ~51% female / ~49% male.
• Digital access and connectivity:
  • Households with any internet subscription: ≈80–85%; with fixed broadband (cable/DSL/fiber): ≈75–80%.
  • Computer/smartphone access: ≈85–90% of households have a computer; ≈10–15% are smartphone‑only internet users.
  • Rural connectivity: Fixed broadband ≥100/20 Mbps is available to most addresses, but pockets in sparsely populated areas remain underserved, driving higher smartphone‑only and public Wi‑Fi reliance.
• Insights:
  • Email adoption is near‑universal among working‑age adults; usage dips among seniors and minors.
  • The county’s lower density and rural dispersion correlate with a modest home‑broadband gap versus Texas urban counties, but rising fiber and fixed‑wireless buildouts are narrowing that gap.

Upshur County, TX mobile phone usage — summary and local deviations from Texas-wide patterns

Population base to size the market

• Residents: ~41,000; households: ~15,000; adults (18+): ~32,500–33,000
• Age mix skews older than Texas overall (roughly 20% 65+ vs Texas ~13–14%), which influences device adoption and plan choices

User estimates (adults unless noted)

• Mobile phone (any cellphone) ownership: ~93% of adults, or about 30,000–31,000 users (slightly below Texas, which is near universal)
• Smartphone users: ~80–84% of adults, or about 26,000–27,500 users (Texas is closer to the mid-to-high 80s)
• Wireless-only (no landline) households: ~68–72% of households, about 10,200–10,800 (Texas: mid-to-high 70s)
• Mobile-only home internet (households relying primarily on cellular data or hotspots for home connectivity): ~7–10%, about 1,050–1,500 households (above the state share)
• Smartphone-dependent adults (no fixed broadband at home, rely on smartphone data): ~18–22% of adult smartphone users, roughly 4,700–6,000 people (Texas: ~14–16%)

Demographic breakdown influencing usage

• Age
  • 18–34: ~8,500–9,000 adults; smartphone ownership ~95–97% → ~8,200–8,700 users
  • 35–64: ~15,000–16,000 adults; smartphone ownership ~85–89% → ~12,800–14,200 users
  • 65+: ~7,500–8,500 adults; smartphone ownership ~60–65% → ~4,500–5,300 users
  • Compared with Texas, seniors make up a larger share and have notably lower smartphone adoption, pulling down the county’s overall rate
• Income/affordability
  • Median household income is materially below the Texas median, and poverty is higher than the state average; price sensitivity elevates prepaid and MVNO use and increases smartphone-only internet reliance
• Race/ethnicity
  • Population is majority White with smaller Black and Hispanic communities than the Texas mix; device adoption gaps by race are modest compared with the larger age and income effects in this county

Digital infrastructure and performance

• Cellular coverage
  • 4G LTE is broadly available along highways and town centers (Gilmer, Gladewater-area portions, Big Sandy, Ore City, Diana), with weaker signal and indoor penetration in low-lying, heavily wooded areas between towns
  • Low-band 5G (coverage-first spectrum) from major carriers reaches most populated corridors; mid-band 5G (capacity layers) is spotty and generally concentrated in/near Gilmer and along major routes
  • Typical user experience: low-band 5G/LTE in rural stretches often 5–50 Mbps; where mid-band 5G is present, 150–400+ Mbps is possible. Median speeds lag Texas metro areas because mid-band sites are fewer and farther apart
• Network mix and plans
  • Higher share of prepaid/MVNO and budget tiers than the state average, reflecting income and credit patterns
  • Device mix skews more Android than the Texas urban norm, consistent with price-sensitive segments and BYOD on prepaid
• Fixed broadband context impacting mobile
  • Fixed broadband subscription: roughly mid-to-high 70s percent of households, below Texas statewide (low-to-mid 80s)
  • Wireline options (fiber/cable) are strongest inside town limits; outside towns, many addresses rely on legacy DSL, wireless ISPs, or mobile hotspots
  • Fixed wireless access (5G or LTE home internet) is emerging around population centers and along major roads, but availability is still patchier than in Texas suburbs and cities
  • The 2024 Affordable Connectivity Program funding lapse likely nudged a measurable number of low-income households toward mobile-only or mobile-first internet, increasing hotspot use

Key ways Upshur County differs from Texas statewide

• Lower smartphone penetration driven by an older age profile and lower incomes
• Higher smartphone-only and mobile-only home internet reliance because fixed broadband is less available/affordable outside towns
• Heavier tilt toward prepaid/MVNO plans and budget devices; iPhone share is lower than in Texas metros
• 5G mid-band capacity coverage is materially sparser, producing lower median speeds and more variation between town centers and rural stretches
• Greater day-to-day dependence on cellular for work in field-based occupations (construction, forestry, energy, trucking), with corresponding use of rugged devices and hotspot tethering

Numbers at a glance (best-available estimates, 2024–2025)

• Adult cellphone users: ~30,000–31,000
• Adult smartphone users: ~26,000–27,500
• Seniors (65+) with smartphones: ~4,500–5,300
• Wireless-only households: ~10,200–10,800
• Mobile-only home internet households: ~1,050–1,500
• Smartphone-dependent adults: ~4,700–6,000

Methodological note: Estimates synthesize 2020 Census and recent ACS demographics for Upshur County with national/rural adoption benchmarks (e.g., Pew Research) and publicly available carrier/FCC coverage trends as of 2024–2025 to quantify county-level usage and the gap versus Texas-wide norms.

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

Scope and method

• Figures are modeled for Upshur County’s adult (18+) population using the latest U.S. Census Bureau county demographics (2023 vintage estimates) and Pew Research Center’s 2024 Social Media Use rates by platform and age. Population rounding is used for clarity.

Population and baseline

• Total population: ~42,000
• Adults (18+): ~31,900 (≈76% of population)
• Gender: ~50% female, ~50% male
• Age structure (approx.): 0–17: 24%; 18–24: 8%; 25–34: 12%; 35–44: 12%; 45–54: 12%; 55–64: 13%; 65+: 19%

Overall social media reach

• Adults using at least one social platform: ~80% of adults ≈ 25,500 users

Most-used platforms (share of adults; modeled from Pew 2024)

• YouTube: 83% (≈26,500 adults)
• Facebook: 68% (≈21,700)
• Instagram: 47% (≈14,000)
• Pinterest: 35% (≈11,200)
• TikTok: 33% (≈10,500)
• LinkedIn: 30% (≈9,600)
• Snapchat: 27% (≈8,600)
• WhatsApp: 26% (≈8,300)
• X/Twitter: 22% (≈7,000)
• Reddit: 22% (≈7,000)
• Nextdoor: ~14% (≈4,500)

Age-group usage patterns (adults)

• 18–29: Very high YouTube and Instagram usage; TikTok and Snapchat are core daily apps; Facebook used but not central.
• 30–49: Facebook and YouTube dominate; Instagram strong; TikTok moderate; LinkedIn relevant for white-collar segments.
• 50–64: Facebook is primary; YouTube strong for how‑to and news; Instagram/TikTok present but lighter.
• 65+: Facebook remains the top network; YouTube moderate; limited Instagram/TikTok.

Gender patterns

• Facebook and YouTube: broadly balanced, with women engaging slightly more on Facebook Groups and Marketplace.
• Pinterest: skew female (discovery, DIY, recipes, home).
• Reddit: skew male (technology, local/regional sports chatter).
• Instagram and TikTok: slight female tilt; men engage more with creator/DIY, autos, outdoors content.
• WhatsApp: concentrated in families with cross-border ties and Hispanic households.

Behavioral trends observed in rural East Texas markets like Upshur

• Facebook as the local hub: High engagement in community groups (schools, churches, events, buy/sell). Marketplace is a major driver of local transactions. Event posts and local news see strong evening and weekend engagement.
• Video-first consumption: YouTube and Facebook video for how‑to, equipment/auto, homesteading, hunting/fishing, local sports highlights. Short-form (Reels/TikTok) is the growth driver for 18–34.
• Messaging ecosystems: Facebook Messenger is ubiquitous; SMS group chats remain common. WhatsApp usage is moderate but steady in bilingual households.
• Discovery paths: Younger adults discover local businesses via Instagram Reels and TikTok “nearby”; 35+ discover via Facebook shares, Groups, and Marketplace listings.
• Content that performs: Locally anchored stories, before/after visuals (home, lawn, auto), limited-time offers, school/sports/faith community tie-ins, and creator-style vertical video. Static image posts underperform video.
• Timing: Peaks 6–9 pm on weekdays, secondary peak around lunch (12–1 pm). Weekends (Sat–Sun mornings and early evenings) are strong for community/event content.
• Platform roles
  • Facebook: Community, announcements, service promotions, Marketplace; best paid reach for 30+.
  • Instagram: Branding and product discovery for 18–34; Reels drive reach; Stories for day-to-day updates.
  • TikTok: Awareness and viral reach among 16–34; effective with authentic, trend-aware short video and local angles.
  • YouTube: Evergreen how‑to, product demos, testimonials; strong search value.
  • Snapchat: Teen/college communication; limited business use except geofilters for events.
  • Pinterest: Project planning and seasonal content; effective for decor, DIY, food, events.
  • X/Twitter: Niche—news watchers, local reporters, high school sports; not mass reach.

Key takeaways

• Facebook and YouTube are the county’s reach pillars (68–83% of adults), with Instagram and TikTok as the growth channels for under‑40s.
• Expect ~25–26k adult social media users countywide, with video as the most reliable engagement format.
• For paid distribution, prioritize Facebook/Instagram for broad reach, add TikTok for 18–34, and use YouTube for durable search-driven content.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (2023 county population estimates; ACS age/sex structure), Pew Research Center (2024 Social Media Use by platform and age). Figures are county-level estimates derived from these datasets.