Adams County

Adams County, Wisconsin — key demographics

Population

• 20,654 (2020 Census)
• 2023 estimate: ~20.9K (U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program)

Age

• Median age: ~52
• Under 18: ~18–19%
• 65 and over: ~27–28%

Gender

• Male: ~51%
• Female: ~49%

Race/ethnicity (ACS 2018–2022)

• White alone: ~93–94%
• Black or African American alone: ~1%
• American Indian/Alaska Native alone: ~1%
• Asian alone: ~0.3–0.5%
• Two or more races: ~3–4%
• Hispanic or Latino (of any race): ~4–5%
• White alone, not Hispanic or Latino: ~89–91%

Households (ACS 2018–2022)

• Households: ~9,100
• Persons per household: ~2.2
• Family households: ~59–60%
• Married-couple households: ~47–48%
• Households with children under 18: ~21–22%
• One-person households: ~31–32%

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (2020 Decennial Census; 2018–2022 American Community Survey 5-year; 2023 Population Estimates). Figures rounded; totals may not sum due to rounding and overlapping race/ethnicity categories.

• Context: Rural county in central Wisconsin (~20.6k residents; ~30 people per sq. mile).
• Estimated email users: 15k–17k (about 75–85% of residents). Among adults, usage is roughly 85–95%.
• Age pattern (share using email):
  • 13–24: ~90%+
  • 25–64: ~90–95%
  • 65+: ~70–85% Seniors are ~28–30% of the population and account for roughly a quarter to a third of email users.
• Gender split: Essentially even (about 49–51% either way).
• Digital access and connectivity:
  • About 75–80% of households have a home broadband subscription; an estimated 10–15% are smartphone‑only internet users.
  • 4G/5G coverage is strongest in and around Adams/Friendship and Rome and along main corridors; gaps persist in sparsely populated, forested, and lakeside areas.
  • Libraries and schools provide free Wi‑Fi and device access that help close the digital divide.
• Trends: Broadband availability and speeds have improved since 2020 via state/federal investments; adoption grows steadily but lags state averages due to low density, older demographics, and seasonal/second‑home patterns. Email remains near‑universal for healthcare portals, government services, and retail.

Below is a best-available snapshot of mobile phone usage in Adams County, Wisconsin, derived from county demographics (ACS), national/rural mobile adoption research (e.g., Pew/NCHS), FCC coverage patterns, and Wisconsin rural infrastructure trends. Where county-specific measurements are unavailable, figures are conservative, model-based estimates calibrated to Adams County’s older age profile, lower incomes, and rural network conditions. Ranges reflect uncertainty.

Headline estimates (adults, 18+)

• Adult population: roughly 16–17k (county total ~20–21k; Adams County skews older).
• Any mobile phone (smartphone or basic): 90–94% of adults → about 14.5–16k users.
• Smartphones: 75–82% of adults → about 12.5–14k users.
• Smartphone-only internet users (no home computer broadband, rely on phone data): 18–22% of adults, above Wisconsin’s ~12–15%. How this differs from Wisconsin overall: county smartphone adoption is several points lower, but reliance on phones as the primary internet connection is several points higher.

Demographic breakdown (directional, county vs. Wisconsin)

• Age
  • 18–34: smartphone 95%+ (near state level).
  • 35–64: 88–92% (1–3 points below state).
  • 65+: 60–70% (5–10 points below state). Adams County has a larger 65+ share (~27–30% vs. ~18% statewide), pulling down the countywide average.
• Income
  • Under $35k: lower ownership than state peers but higher mobile-only internet reliance. Prepaid plans and budget Android devices are more common.
  • $75k+: adoption near-saturation; devices and plans similar to state averages but fewer premium 5G handsets than urban counties.
• Education
  • High-school-or-less is overrepresented vs. Wisconsin; this cohort shows slightly lower smartphone ownership but notably higher smartphone-only internet use.
• Race/ethnicity
  • County is predominantly White non-Hispanic; small Hispanic/Latino population. Nationally, Hispanic users have higher mobile-only rates; locally, sample sizes are small, but schools and service providers report above-average family dependence on phones and hotspots.
• Household type
  • Seasonal/second homes and retirees are common. Seasonal workers and lake-area service jobs contribute to higher prepaid and hotspot use during tourism months.

Usage patterns that diverge from the state

• Mobile-only internet reliance is higher, driven by limited wired broadband off the main towns and lakeside/forest parcels.
• Prepaid share is higher (think 30–40% of lines vs. ~20–25% statewide), reflecting income mix, credit constraints, and seasonal occupancy.
• Carrier mix tilts more rural: UScellular and Verizon dominate; AT&T is present; T-Mobile usage clusters near highways and towns where 600/700 MHz and mid-band 5G have been deployed.
• Hotspotting and fixed wireless access (FWA) are notably higher. Verizon/T‑Mobile FWA take-up is estimated at 10–15% of households vs. ~6–9% statewide, often replacing DSL.
• ACP wind-down impact is larger than average. With the federal Affordable Connectivity Program ended, more households are downgrading to prepaid or going mobile-only for internet.

Digital infrastructure and coverage notes

• 4G LTE coverage is broad along population centers and state highways; coverage gaps persist in low-density areas with heavy tree cover, lake shorelines, and interior town roads. In-building service in older lake cabins can be weak without boosters.
• 5G availability: predominantly low-band/DSS along corridors and in/near Adams-Friendship and other towns; mid-band 5G is sparse, so real-world speeds often resemble strong LTE. This lags the state’s urban/suburban mid-band buildouts.
• Capacity and congestion: sites are spaced farther apart than in metro counties; summer weekends (lakes, campgrounds) bring noticeable slowdowns. Backhaul is a mix of microwave and limited fiber; this constrains mid-band 5G upgrades and peak throughput.
• Towers: coverage is oriented along Hwy corridors and town centers; fill-in sites are limited in outer townships. Backup power exists on some, not all, sites; storms can produce localized outages.
• Wired context that shapes mobile use: Cable/fiber options improve in town, but many outlying areas still rely on aging DSL or satellite. New fiber builds using state/federal grants are in progress in parts of rural Wisconsin; as those reach more Adams County addresses (2025–2028), expect a gradual decline in smartphone-only households and FWA substitution.

What this means in practice

• User base size: approximately 12.5–14k adult smartphone users; 14.5–16k total mobile users.
• Compared with Wisconsin overall: fewer seniors own smartphones, but more households lean on mobile as the primary internet connection; prepaid share and FWA adoption are higher; 5G capacity improvements trail metro areas.
• Planning implications: prioritize mid-band 5G and fiber backhaul to lake/forest edges and seasonal hotspots; expand in-building coverage solutions; coordinate with health, education, and public safety for mobile-first service delivery; and monitor post-ACP affordability gaps that may increase prepaid churn and mobile-only dependence.

Sources and method, in brief

• Demographics: ACS/Census profiles for age, income, households.
• Adoption benchmarks: Pew Research Center and NCHS wireless-only/phone ownership trends with rural adjustments.
• Infrastructure: FCC mobile coverage filings, carrier rural build patterns in Wisconsin, and public reporting on 5G/FWA deployments.
• Estimates apply those benchmarks to Adams County’s age/income mix and rural network characteristics; ranges reflect uncertainty and seasonal variation.

Below is a concise, locally tuned snapshot for Adams County, WI. Figures are modeled estimates using county age mix and rural patterns from recent Pew Research Center social media studies; treat them as directional, not exact survey results.

Headline user stats

• Population context: ~20–21k residents; older-skewing county (median age ~50+).
• Estimated monthly social media users (residents 13+): 12,500–14,500 (about 70–80% of residents 13+; roughly 60–70% of total population).

Age mix of social media users (share of user base)

• 13–17: ~7%
• 18–24: ~8%
• 25–34: ~13%
• 35–44: ~15%
• 45–54: ~16%
• 55–64: ~20%
• 65+: ~21%

Gender breakdown of social media users

• Women: ~52–55%
• Men: ~45–48%
• Note: Women skew higher on Facebook and Pinterest; men skew higher on Reddit and X (Twitter).

Most-used platforms (estimated monthly reach among residents 13+)

• YouTube: ~65–75%
• Facebook: ~55–65%
• Instagram: ~25–35%
• TikTok: ~20–30%
• Snapchat: ~20–28%
• Pinterest: ~20–28%
• Others (smaller but present): X (Twitter), WhatsApp, LinkedIn, Reddit each roughly ~8–12% in this market; Nextdoor likely <10% given rural dispersion.

Behavioral trends to know

• Community-first Facebook: Heavy use of local groups for township updates, school notices, lost/found pets, recommendations, and buy/sell/trade. Marketplace is a go-to for vehicles, outdoor equipment, and seasonal rentals.
• Video gains attention: Short-form clips (Reels/TikTok) featuring lake conditions, fishing/ATV/UTV trails, events, and before/after home or land projects drive strong engagement.
• Seasonality: Engagement rises late spring through early fall (lakes, cabins, tourism) and around key moments (county fair, back-to-school, hunting season). Expect spikes around severe weather and local public safety updates.
• Time-of-day use: Evenings 7–9 pm are peak; retirees engage more mid-day. Weekends show midday browsing.
• Messaging as customer service: Many residents contact businesses via Facebook Messenger; quick replies matter for conversions.
• Reviews and referrals: “Who do you recommend?” posts in groups strongly influence contractor, landscaping, snow removal, and repair services. Facebook ratings and photo proof are persuasive.
• Youth split: Teens and 18–24s lean Snapchat/TikTok for daily comms and trends; Instagram for sports/activities. Cross-posting to reach both FB (older) and IG/TikTok (younger) is key.
• News and civics: Local/regional TV pages and sheriff/EMS pages are followed for timely updates; political chatter intensifies near elections, with many admins enforcing “no politics” rules in community groups.

Method notes and sources

• Built from Pew Research Center 2023–2024 social platform adoption by age, rural vs. urban skews, and Adams County’s older age profile from recent ACS/Census estimates. Validate locally via Facebook Audience Insights, Google/YouTube Ads location estimates, and membership counts of major county groups/pages.