Van Zandt County

Van Zandt County, Texas — key demographics

Population size

• 59,541 (2020 Census)

Age (ACS 2018–2022)

• Median age: ~43.5 years
• Under 18: ~22%
• 65 and over: ~21%

Gender (ACS 2018–2022)

• Female: ~51%
• Male: ~49%

Racial/ethnic composition (2020 Census unless noted)

• White alone: ~90%
• Black or African American alone: ~3–4%
• American Indian and Alaska Native alone: ~1%
• Asian alone: ~1% (rounded)
• Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander: ~0%
• Two or more races: ~5%
• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~10%
• White alone, not Hispanic or Latino: ~81%

Households (ACS 2018–2022)

• Number of households: ~22,500
• Average household size: ~2.6 persons

Insights

• Older age profile than Texas overall (median age ~44 vs. state ~35–36)
• Household size slightly smaller than Texas average (~2.6 vs. ~2.8)
• Population is predominantly non-Hispanic White with a modest Hispanic share

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; American Community Survey 2018–2022 5-year estimates (tables DP05, DP02).

Van Zandt County, TX overview

• Population and density: 59,541 residents (2020 Census) across ≈843 sq mi; ~71 people/sq mi.

Estimated email users

• ≈45,000 residents use email (≈42,700 adults + ≈2,700 teens 13–17), based on ~92% adult email adoption and local age structure.

Age distribution of email users (share of users)

• 18–34: ~21%
• 35–54: ~33%
• 55–64: ~19%
• 65+: ~27%

Gender split

• ~51% female, ~49% male among users (near-parity adoption; mirrors county demographics).

Digital access and connectivity trends

• Household broadband subscription: ≈76–80%; households with a computer or smartphone: ≈88–90%.
• Adult smartphone ownership: ≈85%; smartphone-only internet households: ≈12–15%.
• Connectivity clusters along the I‑20 corridor (Canton, Wills Point, Van) with multiple providers and higher speeds; more gaps in outlying rural precincts where DSL and fixed wireless remain common. Fiber coverage is expanding but not yet countywide.

Insights

• Email reach is high countywide, with a comparatively large 55+ user segment.
• Mobile-optimized email performs reliably across the county; bandwidth-heavy content is more resilient along the I‑20 corridor than in remote areas.

Summary: Mobile phone usage in Van Zandt County, Texas (focus on where it differs from state-level)

User estimates

• Adult smartphone users: approximately 40,000–43,000 adults, reflecting lower rural adoption relative to Texas overall. This estimate aligns county age structure with ACS device and subscription patterns (2019–2023) and typical rural smartphone ownership rates.
• Smartphone‑only internet households: about 18% of households rely solely on a cellular data plan (vs ~13% statewide), indicating heavier dependence on mobile networks for home internet than the Texas average.
• Households with no internet subscription: roughly 16% in the county (vs ~9% in Texas), underscoring a higher share of residents who are offline or rely on non‑subscription access.

Demographic context that drives different usage patterns

• Older population: About 23% of residents are 65+ (vs ~13% statewide), and the county’s median age is notably higher than Texas. This age mix correlates with lower smartphone adoption and less app‑centric usage among seniors, widening the gap with the state.
• Income and education: Median household income is lower than Texas (roughly low‑$60Ks vs low‑$70Ks statewide) and the share of adults with a bachelor’s degree is smaller. Both factors are associated with lower multi‑device ownership, more prepaid plans, and higher smartphone‑only reliance.
• Race/ethnicity: The county is predominantly non‑Hispanic White with a smaller Hispanic share than Texas overall. While smartphone adoption is high across all groups, the county’s older, more rural profile is the stronger differentiator behind usage gaps.

Device ownership and subscriptions (ACS S2801, 2019–2023, indicative shares)

• Households with a smartphone: Van Zandt ~86% vs Texas ~91% (county lags state).
• Households with a desktop/laptop: Van Zandt ~72% vs Texas ~79% (fewer non‑phone devices locally).
• Any broadband subscription (home): Van Zandt ~82% vs Texas ~89%.
• Cellular data plan in household: Van Zandt ~69% vs Texas ~73%.
• Cellular‑only (no other home internet): Van Zandt ~18% vs Texas ~13%. These differences translate into heavier day‑to‑day dependence on mobile data for core online activities in Van Zandt than in most of Texas.

Digital infrastructure points (what’s different on the ground)

• Coverage pattern: 4G LTE is broadly available outdoors countywide, but dependable mid‑band 5G capacity is concentrated along major corridors (notably I‑20 and through towns such as Canton). Outside these corridors, users more often fall back to LTE or low‑band 5G, which limits peak speeds and in‑building performance compared with urban Texas markets.
• Capacity and congestion: Median mobile speeds in the county tend to trail Texas urban and suburban areas due to sparser site density and limited mid‑band spectrum footprint. Congestion spikes are pronounced during large events (e.g., Canton’s First Monday Trade Days) when visitor loads outstrip available sector capacity.
• Site density and in‑building performance: Fewer macro sites per square mile than metro Texas means more dead zones in low‑lying/wooded areas and weaker indoor coverage in metal‑roof structures—issues reported more frequently in rural East Texas than statewide.
• Backhaul and fiber underpinnings: Mobile capacity is tightly coupled to fiber backhaul. Van Zandt’s fiber footprint has been improving but remains thinner than metro Texas; as federally and state‑funded builds (e.g., BEAD via the Texas Broadband Development Office) extend fiber to rural roads and towers through the mid‑2020s, expect noticeable mobile capacity and reliability gains along secondary highways and in unincorporated areas.
• Fixed‑wireless substitution: A larger share of households use home LTE/fixed‑wireless routers as primary internet, pushing more sustained traffic onto mobile networks than the state average and reinforcing the county’s smartphone‑only profile.

What this means for usage

• Compared with Texas overall, Van Zandt residents are slightly less likely to have a smartphone in the home, less likely to have wireline broadband, and more likely to rely on cellular data as their primary or only connection. The older age structure and lower device diversity (fewer laptops/desktops) channel more activities through phones, especially in areas without affordable fiber or cable service.
• Network experience is more variable than in Texas metros: good along I‑20 and town centers, but with speed and indoor reliability trade‑offs in remote tracts. As new fiber and additional 5G sites come online, the gap with the state should narrow, with the largest improvements expected where towers gain fiber backhaul and mid‑band 5G sectors.

Social media usage in Van Zandt County, TX (modeled 2025 snapshot)

How the numbers were derived

• Percentages are modeled to Van Zandt County’s adult population using the county’s age/gender mix from recent Census/ACS releases and platform adoption rates from Pew Research Center’s 2024 Social Media Use studies (plus Pew’s 2023 teen study for 13–17). Figures are rounded and reflect rural adjustments typical for East Texas counties.

Overall reach (adults 18+; share of adults who use each platform)

• YouTube: 80–83%
• Facebook: 63–68%
• Instagram: 40–45%
• Pinterest: 32–36%
• TikTok: 29–33%
• Snapchat: 22–26%
• LinkedIn: 22–26%
• X (Twitter): 18–22%
• Reddit: 16–20%
• WhatsApp: 12–16%

Age-group patterns (share of each group using the platform)

• Teens (13–17)
  • YouTube ~90%+
  • Instagram ~60–65%; Snapchat ~55–60%; TikTok ~60–65%
  • Facebook usage is low among teens (<25%), but they often join local school/sports groups via parents
• Young adults (18–29)
  • YouTube ~90%+
  • Instagram ~70–75%; Snapchat ~60–65%; TikTok ~55–60%
  • Facebook ~50–55%
• Ages 30–49
  • YouTube ~85–90%; Facebook ~70–75%
  • Instagram ~45–50%; TikTok ~35–40%; LinkedIn/Pinterest each ~35–40%
• Ages 50–64
  • Facebook ~70–75%; YouTube ~75–85%
  • Instagram ~25–35%; Pinterest ~35–40%; TikTok ~20–25%
• Ages 65+
  • Facebook ~60–65%; YouTube ~55–65%
  • Instagram ~12–18%; Pinterest ~15–20%; TikTok ~10–15%

Gender breakdown (adult skew by platform)

• Women higher than men on: Facebook (+3–6 pts), Instagram (+6–10 pts), Pinterest (women ~45–50% vs men ~15–25%), TikTok (+3–6 pts)
• Men higher than women on: YouTube (+2–5 pts), Reddit (men ~22–26% vs women ~10–14%), X/Twitter (+2–4 pts), LinkedIn (+2–4 pts)

Most-used platforms locally (by adult reach)

1. YouTube (~80–83%)
2. Facebook (~63–68%)
3. Instagram (~40–45%)
4. Pinterest (~32–36%)
5. TikTok (~29–33%)
6. Snapchat (~22–26%)

Behavioral trends and usage patterns

• Community and information
  • Facebook Groups are the de facto town square: local news, school/sports updates, church events, yard/estate sales, lost-and-found pets, road closures, and storm impacts
  • Sheriff’s office, fire/EMS, school districts, and weather spotters rely on Facebook for rapid alerts; posts spike during severe weather and school-year milestones
• Content and engagement
  • Highest engagement on locally relevant visuals: high school sports highlights, livestock/FFA, hunting/fishing, farm/ranch tips, home services, and new business openings
  • Short-form video grows steadily: local boutiques, crafts, home improvement, and food trucks see traction on Reels/TikTok; cross-posting to Facebook Reels extends reach to older audiences
• Commerce and fundraising
  • Facebook Marketplace and buy–sell–trade groups dominate informal commerce; seasonal peaks around back-to-school, holidays, and spring clean-outs
  • Youth sports, churches, and booster clubs fundraise via Facebook events and live streams; QR codes to Cash App/Venmo are common
• Messaging habits
  • Facebook Messenger is the default for community contacts; SMS remains strong; WhatsApp usage is modest and more niche
• Timing
  • Engagement typically peaks evenings (7–9 pm local) and weekend mid-mornings; weekday midday sees steady scrolling tied to lunch breaks and school pickup windows
• Civic and local business use
  • Small businesses prioritize Facebook Pages + Groups; Instagram used by boutiques, beauty, photography, and hospitality; LinkedIn usage is modest and concentrated among professionals commuting to DFW
  • Candidate forums, school board issues, and bond measures draw bursts of Facebook activity; discussion migrates between public pages and invite-only groups

Primary sources underpinning these estimates

• Pew Research Center: Social Media Use in 2024 (U.S. adults) and Teens, Social Media and Technology 2023
• U.S. Census Bureau: 2020 Decennial Census and recent American Community Survey (age/gender composition used for weighting)