Wilbarger County

Wilbarger County, Texas — key demographics (latest U.S. Census/ACS data)

Population

• Total population: 12,887 (2020 Census)
• Change since 2010: −4.8% (2010: 13,535)

Age

• Median age: ~39 years (ACS 2019–2023)
• Under 18: ~24%
• 65 and over: ~19%

Sex

• Male: ~51%
• Female: ~49%

Race and ethnicity (mutually exclusive; ACS 2019–2023)

• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~30%
• Non-Hispanic White: ~55%
• Non-Hispanic Black: ~10–11%
• Non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native: ~1%
• Non-Hispanic Asian: <1%
• Non-Hispanic Two or more races: ~3%

Households (ACS 2019–2023)

• Households: ~4,900
• Average household size: ~2.45
• Family households: ~65% of households
  • Married-couple families: ~45% of households
• Nonfamily households: ~35%
• Housing tenure: ~68% owner-occupied, ~32% renter-occupied
• Average family size: ~3.0

Insights

• The county is small and slowly shrinking, with an older age profile (roughly one in five residents is 65+).
• Population is majority non-Hispanic White, with a sizable Hispanic community (~3 in 10 residents).
• Household structure skews toward owner-occupied family households, typical of rural Texas counties.

Wilbarger County, TX (2020 pop. ≈12,900; land area ≈978 sq mi; density ≈13 people/sq mi) has widespread email use driven by connected adults in and around Vernon, with sparser connectivity in rural areas.

Estimated email users: ≈8,700 residents (≈88% of adults), derived from local age mix and U.S./Texas adoption rates.

Age distribution of email users (share of users):

• 18–34: ≈27% (~2,400)
• 35–64: ≈52% (~4,500)
• 65+: ≈21% (~1,800)

Gender split of email users:

• Women ≈51% (~4,400)
• Men ≈49% (~4,300)

Digital access and trends:

• Households with any internet subscription ≈80%; with fixed broadband ≈75%.
• Households with a computer/tablet ≈85–88%; smartphone-only internet reliance ≈22–25%, higher outside Vernon.
• Fixed broadband (cable/fiber) is concentrated in Vernon and along major corridors; outlying areas depend more on DSL, fixed wireless, or satellite.
• Speeds and reliability are improving where fiber expands, but affordability pressures have increased following the 2024 wind-down of federal ACP subsidies.
• Email remains near-universal among connected adults across genders; adoption among 65+ lags younger groups but continues to climb via smartphones and telehealth/benefits use.

Mobile phone usage in Wilbarger County, Texas — key findings focused on how the county differs from statewide patterns

Scope and baselines

• Population and households: Wilbarger County has roughly 12.5–12.9 thousand residents and about 5,000 households (latest Census/ACS 5‑year period).
• Data anchors used: U.S. Census/ACS device and internet tables (S2801, 5‑year), national/state mobile adoption benchmarks (Pew, CPS), and Texas rural infrastructure patterns through 2023–2024.

User estimates

• Adult mobile phone users: roughly 8,500–9,000 adults use a mobile phone in Wilbarger County, equating to about 88–92% of adults (a few points below Texas overall).
• Smartphone users: about 8,000–8,500 adult smartphone users (≈82–86% of adults), versus roughly 89–92% at the state level.
• Household smartphone ownership: approximately 4,350–4,450 households have at least one smartphone (≈86–89% of households), trailing Texas by a few points.
• Mobile-only home internet: an estimated 18–23% of households rely primarily on a cellular data plan/smartphone for home internet (notably higher than Texas, which is typically in the low-to-mid teens).
• Households with no home internet: about 12–15% (higher than the Texas average, which is generally under 10%).

Demographic breakdown (local composition weighted to county age/income mix)

• Age
  • 18–29: very high smartphone adoption (≈93–96%), but slightly below Texas peers.
  • 30–64: high adoption (≈88–92%), a few points below state.
  • 65+: materially lower adoption (≈70–75%) than Texas seniors (often ≈78–82%). Seniors in Wilbarger are also more likely to be mobile‑phone (voice/text) users without full‑time smartphone data plans.
• Income
  • Under $25k: smartphone adoption around the mid‑70s percent (≈74–78%), with above‑average reliance on prepaid plans and mobile‑only internet.
  • $25k–$75k: adoption in the low-to-mid 80s.
  • $75k+: adoption in the low-to-mid 90s, broadly on par with Texas.
• Race/ethnicity (county composition: majority non‑Hispanic White with sizable Hispanic and smaller Black populations)
  • After controlling for income, smartphone adoption is broadly similar across groups, but Hispanic households show a higher propensity for smartphone‑only home internet and prepaid plans than the county average, echoing statewide patterns in affordability strategies.

Usage patterns that differ from Texas overall

• Higher dependence on mobile-only internet at home (+4 to +9 percentage points above the state).
• Slightly lower overall smartphone adoption (−3 to −6 points) and a wider senior gap (older adults are less likely to use smartphones and more likely to use basic plans).
• Larger prepaid share of mobile lines (materially higher than the Texas average), reflecting price sensitivity and coverage hedging (keeping a backup/secondary line).
• Longer device replacement cycles (roughly 3.3–3.7 years vs. nearer 3.0 statewide), driven by income and retail access.
• More pronounced indoor coverage variability outside Vernon, leading to heavier reliance on Wi‑Fi calling and external antennas/boosters.

Digital infrastructure and coverage

• Networks present: AT&T (including FirstNet Band 14 for public safety), Verizon, and T‑Mobile operate countywide, with best performance concentrated in and around Vernon and along US‑287.
• 5G footprint: Mid‑band 5G is strongest along the US‑287 corridor and in town; outlying ranchland often falls back to low‑band 5G or LTE. This produces a wider town‑to‑rural performance gap than the Texas average.
• Performance: Typical in‑town 5G downloads in the tens to low‑hundreds of Mbps with uplink 5–20 Mbps; in outlying areas, downloads often drop to 5–25 Mbps with higher latency. Median speeds trail Texas urban/suburban medians by a substantial margin.
• Backhaul and capacity: Fiber backhaul tracks the highway corridor; many rural sectors depend on microwave backhaul, which increases congestion during peak periods and severe weather.
• Tower siting: Macro sites cluster around Vernon, the US‑287 and US‑183/70 corridors, and utility ROWs; coverage “shadows” appear in low‑lying or tree‑sheltered areas south and west of the city, a more acute pattern than in most Texas metros.
• Public safety: FirstNet coverage prioritizes county facilities and major corridors; text‑to‑911 is broadly supported by national carriers, improving reach for low‑signal interiors.

Implications for stakeholders

• Carriers: Greatest ROI lies in rural sector densification and additional mid‑band overlays off the highway grid; microwave backhaul upgrades where fiber is unavailable will reduce peak‑time slowdowns.
• Public sector: Raising household connectivity via device subsidies and hotspot programs will disproportionately benefit seniors and low‑income households, where the smartphone gap is most pronounced.
• Businesses and healthcare: Plan for mixed connectivity (5G + Wi‑Fi + caching) for field operations; telehealth uptake is constrained more by device data plans and indoor coverage than by user willingness.

Bottom line

• Wilbarger County’s mobile ecosystem is defined by very high overall mobile usage but lower smartphone adoption than the Texas average, a distinctly higher share of mobile‑only home internet, and sharper town‑rural performance gaps due to infrastructure concentration along major corridors. These divergences from state‑level trends are most evident among seniors, lower‑income households, and residents outside Vernon, and they shape both usage behavior (prepaid, Wi‑Fi calling) and investment priorities (mid‑band 5G expansion and backhaul upgrades).

Wilbarger County, Texas — Social media usage snapshot (2024)

Baseline

• Population: 12,887 (U.S. Census, 2020 decennial)
• Estimated active social media users (all ages): ≈9,300 (modeled by applying U.S. social-media penetration of ~72% of total population to the county)

Most-used platforms (share of U.S. adults who use each; expect the same rank order locally)

• YouTube: ~83%
• Facebook: ~68%
• Instagram: ~47%
• TikTok: ~33%
• Also notable: Pinterest ~35%, LinkedIn ~30%, Snapchat ~30%, WhatsApp ~26%, X/Twitter ~20–27% Implication for Wilbarger: Facebook and YouTube dominate local reach; Instagram and TikTok are mid-tier but powerful for under-35; Pinterest is meaningful among women 25–54; X/Twitter remains niche but influential for news/sports.

User stats and age groups

• Overall penetration (U.S. adults): 18–29 ≈84%, 30–49 ≈81%, 50–64 ≈73%, 65+ ≈45% use at least one social platform.
• Local implication: With an older-than-urban age profile, Wilbarger skews more heavily to Facebook (and YouTube) among 35+ while 18–34 drive Instagram, TikTok, and Snapchat usage. Expect lower teen/20s volume than large metros but very high daily use among those cohorts who are present.

Gender breakdown (patterns consistent with U.S. data)

• Overall usage is near-parity by gender.
• Female-skewed platforms locally: Facebook (slight), Pinterest (strong), Instagram (moderate).
• Male-skewed platforms locally: X/Twitter and Reddit (niche but more male), YouTube (slight).
• Messaging: Facebook Messenger is ubiquitous; WhatsApp pockets exist (notably in Hispanic households and for cross-border family ties).

Behavioral trends in Wilbarger County (rural Texas patterns)

• Community info hubs: Facebook Pages/Groups for school districts, city/county agencies, churches, youth sports, and weather/emergency updates drive recurring engagement.
• Marketplace and buy/sell: Facebook Marketplace and local “swap” groups see heavy, practical use (autos, equipment, rentals, services).
• Video-first consumption: Short vertical video (Reels/TikTok) for events, local highlights, and “how-to” performs well; YouTube for longer DIY, ag, outdoors, and repair content.
• Posting windows: Evenings (6–9 p.m.) and weekends show higher engagement; weekday midday spikes during weather or school announcements.
• Trust signals: Content from known local institutions or personalities outperforms generic brand ads; community partnerships and sponsorships increase shares and comments.
• Language/culture: English-dominant with some Spanish-language utility; bilingual posts broaden reach for public service and health messaging.
• Ads and targeting: Geo-targeted Facebook/Instagram ads at ZIP/county level, event-based boosts, and lead forms convert efficiently; value offers and clear CTAs work better than broad brand creative.

How to interpret the numbers

• County-level platform stats aren’t released publicly; the figures above combine definitive population counts with U.S. platform usage benchmarks (Pew Research Center, 2024 series) to model local reach and behavior. Use them to size audiences, choose platforms, and set creative/placement strategy rather than as exact user counts.

Sources

• U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census (Wilbarger County population)
• Pew Research Center, Social Media Use in 2024 (U.S. adult platform adoption by site and age)
• We Are Social/Hootsuite, Digital 2024 (U.S. social media penetration vs. total population)