Wood County

Key demographics for Wood County, Texas (U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2018–2022 5-year estimates unless noted)

Population size

• Total population: ~46,100
• 2020 Census count: 44,843

Age

• Median age: ~48 years
• Under 18: ~20%
• 18–64: ~53%
• 65 and over: ~27%

Gender

• Female: ~50–51%
• Male: ~49–50%

Racial/ethnic composition

• Non-Hispanic White: ~80%
• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~10–11%
• Black or African American: ~3–4%
• Two or more races: ~3%
• Asian: ~0.5%
• American Indian/Alaska Native: ~0.5–0.7%

Household data

• Households: ~18,900
• Average household size: ~2.4
• Family households: ~68% of households
• Married-couple households: ~60–61% of households
• Households with children under 18: ~24–25%
• 1-person households: ~26–27%
• Owner-occupied housing rate: ~80–82%

Insights

• Older age profile than Texas overall, with about one in four residents 65+.
• Predominantly non-Hispanic White, with a modest Hispanic share and small shares of other groups.
• Household structure is marriage- and owner-occupied–oriented, with smaller household sizes typical of rural/retirement-leaning counties.

Wood County, TX snapshot (2024 est.; ACS/Census + Pew-based modeling)

• Population/density: 46,000 residents across ~700 sq mi (66 people/sq mi).
• Estimated email users (adults 18+): ~33,200 of ~35,900 adults (≈92%).
• Daily email users: ~20,000 (≈60% of users).

Age distribution of adult email users

• 18–34: ~6,700 users (≈98% adoption).
• 35–64: ~17,600 users (≈94%).
• 65+: ~8,900 users (≈85%).

Gender split

• Population: ~51% female, ~49% male.
• Email users mirror population: ~16.9k female, ~16.3k male.

Digital access and devices

• Households: ~18,400.
• With an internet subscription: 83% (15,300 households).
• Cellular-only internet: 11% (2,000 households).
• No home internet: 6% (1,100 households).
• Device access (household level): ~70% desktop/laptop; ~85% smartphone.

Connectivity notes and trends

• Fiber/coax coverage concentrated along main corridors (US‑69/US‑80) and town centers (Mineola, Quitman, Winnsboro); outlying rural tracts rely more on DSL, fixed wireless, or satellite.
• Broadband subscription and speeds trail urban Texas but are improving as fiber builds expand, narrowing email-access gaps for older and rural residents.

Mobile phone usage in Wood County, Texas (2024–2025 snapshot)

Population and household baseline

• Population: ≈45,000 (2020 Census; modest growth since). Adults ≈36,000.
• Households: ≈19,000; older age profile (≈28% age 65+ vs ≈13% statewide).

User estimates (adults)

• Smartphone users: ≈30,000–31,000 adults (≈85% of adults), below Texas’ ≈90% adult smartphone rate.
• Basic/feature-phone users: ≈2,500–3,000 adults (≈7–8%), above Texas’ ≈4–5%.
• Adults without a mobile phone: ≈1,500–2,000 (≈4–5%), higher than the statewide ≈2–3%.
• Seniors (65+): ≈12,500–13,000 people; ≈9,500–10,000 use smartphones (≈75–78%), leaving ≈3,000 non-smartphone seniors—materially higher than the statewide share because of the county’s older age mix.

Access and subscription patterns

• Wireless-only telephone households (no landline): ≈68–70% of households (≈12,900–13,300), slightly lower than Texas’ ≈74% due to the county’s larger senior population.
• Cellular data–only internet (households with a cellular data plan and no fixed broadband): ≈24% of households (≈4,500–4,700), notably above Texas’ ≈14%. This reflects reliance on mobile data where fixed broadband is sparse or costly.
• Any cellular data plan (with or without fixed broadband): ≈80–85% of households, broadly similar to Texas, but Wood County is more likely to be “cellular-only” rather than “cellular-plus-fixed.”

Demographic nuances shaping usage

• Age: The older skew suppresses overall smartphone penetration and app-centric use compared with Texas. Seniors are more likely to use basic phones, keep landlines, and rely on voice/SMS.
• Income: Median household income trails the state; prepaid and MVNO plans have above-average uptake, and hotspot tethering is used as a cost-effective home internet substitute more often than statewide.
• Education and digital skills: Lower bachelor’s attainment than Texas contributes to slower adoption of advanced mobile services and lower use of telehealth apps unless aided by local outreach.

Digital infrastructure and performance

• Coverage: AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile provide countywide outdoor LTE coverage; low-band 5G is present on major corridors and in population centers, with mid-band 5G concentrated in towns and along highways. Coverage thins in heavily wooded areas and around lake perimeters, affecting indoor reliability.
• Performance: Typical rural profiles apply—good outdoor LTE/low-band 5G coverage with modest median speeds and higher variability than Texas’ metro-dominated statewide benchmarks. Users commonly enable Wi‑Fi calling to mitigate indoor signal challenges.
• Fixed-broadband context: Limited fiber and uneven cable/DSL footprints raise the relative importance of mobile data as a primary or backup connection. This drives the county’s substantially higher cellular-only internet share versus Texas overall.
• Emergency and capacity considerations: Seasonal surges around recreational areas (e.g., Lake Fork) can create localized congestion, increasing the value of carriers’ temporary capacity boosts and C‑band/mid-band 5G deployments when available.

How Wood County differs from Texas statewide

• Lower smartphone penetration (≈85% vs ≈90%) and higher basic-phone retention, driven by age mix and income.
• Much higher reliance on cellular-only home internet (≈24% vs ≈14%), reflecting fixed-broadband gaps and price sensitivity.
• Slightly lower wireless-only telephone adoption (≈69% vs ≈74%) due to a larger senior share that retains landlines.
• Greater prepaid/MVNO usage and hotspot dependence than the state average.
• Coverage is broad but more dependent on low-band 5G/LTE, with fewer mid-band 5G zones than urban Texas, producing wider speed variability and more frequent indoor coverage workarounds.

Notes on sources and method

• Population, age, households: U.S. Census/ACS.
• Smartphone and wireless-only trends: Pew Research (2023–2024) and CDC NHIS (wireless-only telephony).
• Cellular-only internet shares: ACS “Types of Internet Subscriptions” applied to county vs Texas differentials.
• Coverage characterization: FCC National Broadband Map and carrier rural deployment patterns.

These figures combine the latest available federal datasets with county demographics to produce defensible, county-specific estimates and clear deltas against Texas overall.

Social media usage in Wood County, Texas (2025 snapshot)

Important note on method: Hyperlocal, platform-verified metrics at the county level aren’t published. Figures below are modeled estimates for Wood County’s adult population using U.S. Census (Wood County 2020 population: 44,843; older-than-average age profile; slightly more women than men) and 2024 Pew Research Center platform adoption by age/gender, adjusted for the county’s older skew. Use these as planning-grade estimates.

Headline user stats

• Adults using at least one social platform: ~72% of adults
• Gender (Census baseline): ~51% female, ~49% male; social usage rate is similar by gender, but platform choice differs (see below)
• Device mix: Predominantly mobile; desktop use higher among 50+ for Facebook and YouTube

Most-used platforms (estimated share of adults)

• YouTube: ~78%
• Facebook: ~70%
• Instagram: ~38%
• Pinterest: ~34%
• TikTok: ~28%
• Snapchat: ~22%
• WhatsApp: ~22%
• X (Twitter): ~20%
• LinkedIn: ~17%
• Reddit: ~14%

Age-group dynamics (adoption and behavior)

• 18–29: Heavy multi-platform use; Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat are core. Short-form video and creator-led content drive discovery; DMs for peer-to-peer communication; low Facebook posting, but some Marketplace use.
• 30–49: Facebook + YouTube are foundational; Instagram used for brands, local businesses, and family. WhatsApp/Messenger for groups. High engagement with Marketplace and event-based groups (youth sports, schools).
• 50–64: Facebook is dominant for news, groups, and Marketplace; YouTube for DIY, how-to, hunting/fishing, and local church content. Pinterest used for projects, recipes, and home.
• 65+: Facebook and YouTube lead; lower adoption of TikTok/Instagram. Strong participation in neighborhood, civic, and church groups; higher desktop usage than younger cohorts.

Gender breakdown by platform (tendencies)

• Higher female skew: Pinterest (strong), Instagram (moderate), Facebook (slight)
• Higher male skew: YouTube (moderate), Reddit (strong), X/Twitter (moderate)
• Largely balanced: TikTok, WhatsApp, Snapchat (with youth skew)

Behavioral trends and local patterns

• Community-first usage: Facebook Groups are central for local news, churches, school districts, events, lost-and-found, and yard sales. Marketplace is a major local commerce channel.
• Video as default: YouTube and Facebook Reels drive reach; short-form video outperforms static posts for businesses and events.
• Practical content wins: DIY repairs, equipment/auto, land and homestead projects, hunting/fishing, and faith-based content see outsized engagement.
• Local business discovery: Restaurants, boutiques, home services, realtors, and contractors perform best with frequent posting, reviews, and UGC; Instagram and Facebook cross-posting is common.
• Messaging gravity: Facebook Messenger is ubiquitous for community and family coordination; WhatsApp present in family and work groups; SMS still common among older adults.
• Timing: Engagement is strongest evenings and weekends; midday spikes around lunch for mobile users.

What these numbers mean for targeting and content

• Reach breadth: Facebook and YouTube provide the widest county-wide reach, especially for 35+.
• Youth access: To reach under-35s, prioritize Instagram and TikTok; Snapchat adds incremental teen/young-adult reach.
• Women 25–54: Combine Facebook, Instagram, and Pinterest; emphasize practical tips, visuals, promos, and local stories.
• Men 35–64: Lean on YouTube (how-to, product demos) and Facebook Groups; include hunting/outdoors and equipment angles.
• Drive outcomes locally: Use Facebook Events, Groups, and Marketplace for foot traffic and community participation; pair with short-form video to expand reach.

Source basis

• Demographic baseline: U.S. Census Bureau (Wood County, 2020)
• Platform adoption and demographics: Pew Research Center Social Media Use (2024)
• Figures are modeled estimates adjusted to Wood County’s older age profile; refine with platform ad-reach tools for campaign planning.