Craig County

Key demographics — Craig County, Virginia (U.S. Census Bureau; 2020 Census and 2019–2023 ACS 5-year; rounded)

• Population: ~4,9k
• Age:
  • Median age: ~49
  • Under 18: ~19%
  • 18–64: ~59%
  • 65 and over: ~22%
• Gender:
  • Male: ~51%
  • Female: ~49%
• Race/ethnicity:
  • White: ~95–96%
  • Black or African American: ~0.5–1%
  • American Indian/Alaska Native: ~0–0.5%
  • Asian: ~0–0.5%
  • Two or more races: ~2–4%
  • Hispanic/Latino (any race): ~1–2%
• Households:
  • Total households: ~2,000–2,100
  • Average household size: ~2.4
  • Family households: ~70%
  • Married-couple households: ~55–60% of all households

Notes: Figures are rounded; ACS estimates may not sum to 100% due to rounding and the way race/ethnicity are tabulated.

Craig County, VA snapshot (estimates)

• Population: ~4,900; adults ~3,800. Estimated email users: 3,200–3,600 (applying typical U.S. rural adoption of ~85–95% among adults).
• Age distribution of email users (approx.):
  • 18–34: 25–30%
  • 35–49: 25–30%
  • 50–64: 25–30%
  • 65+: 15–20% (lower usage in this group)
• Gender split among email users: roughly even (minimal gap observed nationally).
• Digital access trends:
  • Household broadband subscription likely in the 65–75% range; notable share of smartphone‑only internet and reliance on DSL/satellite or fixed wireless in outlying areas.
  • Terrain-driven gaps and sparse settlement keep some valleys/hollows underserved; cellular data can be spotty outside main corridors.
  • State (VATI) and federal (BEAD) investments are expanding fiber; access and email adoption are rising as new service areas light up.
• Local density/connectivity facts:
  • Very sparse: ~15 people per square mile across ~330 sq mi.
  • Service is strongest near New Castle and along primary roads; the mountainous National Forest areas are the hardest to reach.

Notes: Figures derive from 2020 Census population, ACS-style broadband patterns for rural Virginia, and national email usage by age.

Summary: Mobile phone usage in Craig County, Virginia (planning-grade estimates)

Context

• Small, very rural county (~5.2k residents; low population density; mountainous terrain around New Castle). Terrain and sparse tower siting create more dead zones than typical for Virginia.

User estimates

• Adult base: ~4.1k–4.4k adults.
• Smartphone users: ~3.3k–3.8k adults (roughly 80–88% of adults). This trails Virginia’s statewide adoption (≈85–92%).
• Smartphone-dependent for home internet: ~18–28% of households rely mainly on a cellular data plan or a smartphone hotspot for home connectivity, noticeably higher than the state average (≈10–15%).
• Plan mix: Higher share of prepaid/MVNO lines (≈25–35% vs ≈15–20% statewide), driven by price sensitivity and the ability to switch carriers for spotty coverage.

Demographic patterns (how usage differs from the state)

• Age: Craig County skews older than Virginia overall. Adoption among 65+ is meaningfully lower than state peers; feature phones and basic plans remain more common. Younger adults and teens have high smartphone adoption but often on shared or prepaid plans.
• Income and education: Median income and college attainment are below state averages. This correlates with:
  • More budget devices and longer replacement cycles.
  • Greater reliance on a single smartphone per adult (fewer tablets/laptops per household).
  • Increased smartphone-only internet use where wired broadband is unaffordable or unavailable.
• Race/ethnicity: The county is predominantly White with small minority populations; usage differences tend to track income/age rather than race.

Digital infrastructure highlights

• Coverage pattern: 4G/LTE is present along main corridors and around New Castle, but valley and forested areas see frequent gaps. 5G coverage is limited and discontinuous; state metro areas have far denser mid-band 5G.
• Carrier differentiation: Verizon and AT&T generally provide the most reliable rural coverage; T-Mobile performance is more variable off main roads. Residents sometimes keep multiple SIMs or switch carriers seasonally to cope with dead zones.
• Capacity and speeds: Typical speeds are lower and more variable than statewide averages, with evening slowdowns on congested sectors. In-home cellular signal boosters are common.
• Backhaul and towers: Sparse tower density and challenging topography limit sector reach; fewer fiber-fed sites than in suburban Virginia. New tower builds face siting and backhaul constraints.
• Alternatives and offload: Limited cable/fiber availability pushes households to DSL, fixed wireless, or satellite. Public Wi‑Fi options (library, schools, county buildings) matter more for offloading data than in most Virginia localities.

Trends versus Virginia statewide (what’s notably different)

• Lower overall smartphone adoption, driven mostly by the older age profile.
• Significantly higher share of smartphone-only or cellular‑dependent home internet.
• More prepaid/MVNO usage and carrier switching for coverage reasons.
• Less 5G availability and more persistent coverage gaps; average mobile speeds are lower and less consistent.
• Greater reliance on signal boosters, Wi‑Fi calling, and public Wi‑Fi to compensate for weak indoor coverage.

Notes on methodology and uncertainty

• Figures are planning-grade estimates synthesized from recent ACS patterns for rural Virginia counties (computer and internet use), FCC coverage/broadband trends, and known rural adoption gaps; Craig County’s small population and terrain can produce micro‑level variation. For program or grant work, confirm with:
  • ACS 5‑year table S2801 (Computer and Internet Use) for county-level smartphone and cellular data subscription indicators.
  • FCC National Broadband Map and carrier coverage maps for 4G/5G availability.
  • Virginia Office of Broadband/VATI project maps for pending fiber or fixed‑wireless builds.

Here’s a concise, data-informed snapshot of social media use in Craig County, VA. Precise county-level platform data isn’t publicly reported, so figures below are estimates derived from county demographics (rural, older-skewing) and recent U.S./rural usage benchmarks (e.g., Pew Research Center, 2024).

County snapshot and user base

• Population: roughly 5,000; older-than-average age profile; rural broadband adoption below metro averages.
• Estimated social media users (13+): about 3,000–3,600 people (roughly 60–75% of total residents; 70–80% of adults).
• Device mix: predominantly smartphone; video-friendly when coverage is good, but spotty connectivity favors shorter clips and image posts.

Most-used platforms (share of local adults; teens noted where relevant)

• Facebook: 65–75% (dominant community hub; especially strong 35+)
• YouTube: 70–85% (how-to, local sports highlights, outdoor content)
• Instagram: 25–40% (skews <35; lighter among 50+)
• TikTok: 20–35% (strong among teens/20s; more viewing than posting)
• Snapchat: 15–30% (primarily teens/young adults)
• Pinterest: 25–35% (female-skewing, DIY, gardening, recipes)
• X/Twitter: 10–20% (news/sports followers; low everyday use)
• LinkedIn: 10–20% (lower due to small professional base)
• Reddit: 10–15% (younger male skew)
• Nextdoor: <5% (limited neighborhood density)

Age profile of active social media users (share of users, not population)

• 13–17: 8–10% (Snapchat/TikTok-heavy; YouTube universal)
• 18–34: 20–28% (IG/TikTok/Snapchat + FB/Messenger for coordination)
• 35–54: 35–40% (Facebook and YouTube core)
• 55+: 30–35% (Facebook first; YouTube growing; light on IG/TikTok)

Gender breakdown

• Overall users: roughly even (about 50/50 ±2 points).
• Platform tendencies: women more active on Facebook/Pinterest; men somewhat higher on YouTube/Reddit. Engagement on buy/sell/trade and local groups skews female; outdoor/DIY video content skews male.

Behavioral trends

• Community-first behavior: Facebook Groups and local Pages drive most conversation (school updates, road/weather alerts, church and civic events, high-school sports, volunteer fire/EMS notices).
• Social commerce: Heavy Facebook Marketplace and local buy/sell/trade activity; strong traction for handmade goods, farm/garden equipment, small engines, tools.
• Video habits: YouTube for DIY, homesteading, hunting/fishing, equipment repair; TikTok for short entertainment and local trend discovery; many “viewers” vs “posters.”
• Communication: Facebook Messenger and SMS dominate 1:1 coordination; Snapchat among teens/college-age.
• Trust and content style: Local faces, plain-language posts, photos of inventory/results, and timely service updates outperform polished brand creative.
• Timing: Engagement peaks evenings (7–10 p.m.) and weekends; quick lunchtime scrolls on weekdays.
• Connectivity-aware behavior: Short videos, compressed images, and minimal-click experiences perform better due to patchy coverage.

Notes and method

• Percentages are estimates based on 2024 national/rural social media benchmarks applied to Craig County’s size and age profile. For a sharper local read, supplement with:
  • Facebook/Instagram Ads Manager reach estimates for “people living in Craig County, VA”
  • YouTube/Google Ads location reach
  • Local school/agency Page follower counts and engagement rates
  • Short resident survey through local FB groups or school newsletters