Clark County

What reference do you prefer for the figures?

• 2020 Decennial Census (official counts), or
• Latest ACS 5-year estimates (2019–2023, best current county-level estimates)

I’ll use your choice and provide concise, source-labeled stats for population, age, gender, race/ethnicity, and households.

Clark County, WI email usage (estimates)

• Estimated users: ~20,000 adult email users (based on ~34.7k residents, ~75% adults, rural internet adoption ~83%, and >90% of internet users using email). Plus a smaller number of teens.

• Age pattern:

  • 18–34: ~95% use email.
  • 35–54: ~95%.
  • 55–64: ~85–90%.
  • 65+: ~60–75% (lower due to lower internet adoption).

• Gender split: Roughly even; minor gaps appear mainly in the oldest cohorts.

• Digital access trends:

  • Household fixed broadband subscription likely ~70–80% (below state urban rates); mobile-only access ~10–15%.
  • Smartphone ownership high (mid‑80s to ~90% of adults), helping sustain email use where fixed service is absent.
  • Rural constraints (longer last‑mile distances, terrain, and a notable Amish population that often limits internet use) depress overall adoption.

• Local density/connectivity facts:

  • Low population density (~30 people per sq. mile, far below Wisconsin’s average) increases per‑household network build costs.
  • Faster cable/fiber is concentrated in towns (e.g., Neillsville/Greenwood/Colby areas); many outlying townships rely on older DSL or fixed‑wireless, creating speed and reliability gaps.

Notes: Figures are modeled from Census/ACS and Pew rural adoption norms; use for planning, not as exact counts.

Below is a concise, decision-ready snapshot of mobile phone usage in Clark County, Wisconsin, with estimates and the key ways it diverges from statewide patterns. Figures are best-available approximations based on 2020–2023 population baselines, rural vs. state differences seen in Pew/ACS/FCC data, and known local context; county-specific survey data on phone ownership is limited.

User estimates (order-of-magnitude ranges)

• Adult mobile phone users: 24,000–26,000 adults with any mobile phone.
• Adult smartphone users: 21,000–23,000 (roughly 79%–85% of adults), a few percentage points below Wisconsin overall.
• Households relying on cellular data as their primary/only home internet: 3,000–3,800 households (about 22%–28% of households), notably above the statewide share.
• Wireless-only (no landline) households: roughly 68%–74% of adults live in wireless-only households, slightly below Wisconsin overall due to an older age profile and presence of Plain communities.

Demographic breakdown (drivers of usage)

• Age: Smartphone adoption is near-universal among teens and younger adults, but drops more among 65+ in Clark County than statewide. The county’s slightly older age mix pulls overall smartphone ownership down a bit vs. Wisconsin.
• Income and education: Lower median income and more dispersed employment in agriculture correlate with higher smartphone-dependence for internet access and higher use of prepaid plans than state averages.
• Cultural/faith communities: A meaningful Plain (Amish/Old Order) population depresses overall device adoption and data-plan uptake compared to the state.
• Hispanic/Latine residents: Concentrations around Abbotsford/Colby show higher smartphone dependence for home internet and communications, similar to patterns in other rural Wisconsin manufacturing/ag hubs.

Digital infrastructure points (coverage and capacity)

• Coverage mix: 4G LTE is the workhorse across most of the county; 5G coverage is concentrated in/near town centers (e.g., Neillsville, Greenwood, Loyal, Owen-Withee, Abbotsford/Colby corridors) and along major highways, with gaps in forested and low-lying areas.
• Performance variability: Mid-band 5G (fast, capacity-rich) is limited; much of the county relies on low-band 5G or LTE with moderate speeds. In-building coverage can be weak in metal dairy facilities and wooded valleys.
• Providers and tower density: All three national carriers are present but with sparser tower density than suburban/urban Wisconsin. Fixed wireless (including CBRS) and mobile hotspots are commonly used as substitutes where cable/fiber are absent.
• Backhaul and fiber: Ongoing rural fiber builds (BEAD/ARPA-era projects) are improving tower backhaul and some last-mile availability, but many outlying townships remain LTE/Fixed Wireless-first today.
• Public anchors: Schools, libraries, and clinics act as connectivity anchors; public Wi‑Fi sees heavier use than in urban counties, especially during seasonal peaks.

How Clark County differs from Wisconsin overall

• Lower smartphone ownership rate by several points, driven by older age structure and Plain communities.
• Higher reliance on cellular-only home internet and mobile hotspots (materially above the state average).
• More variability in service quality by township; fewer mid-band 5G sites and more LTE-only pockets than the state pattern.
• Slightly higher prepaid share and device turnover driven by budget sensitivity.
• Business usage skew: Agriculture and small manufacturing increase SMS/voice reliance and use of rugged/basic devices and IoT sensors connected via LTE, a mix less prominent statewide.

Notes and validation

• To firm up the numbers, combine: ACS 5-year Internet Subscription (Table B28002: “Cellular data plan” and “Cell-only” households) for Clark County vs. Wisconsin; FCC mobile coverage maps for 4G/5G availability; Pew for smartphone adoption differentials (rural vs. overall); and state broadband grant maps for fiber/backhaul status.
• Because county-level phone ownership isn’t directly surveyed, the smartphone and wireless-only figures above are modeled from rural deltas and should be treated as planning estimates rather than precise counts.

Clark County, WI social media snapshot (estimates, 2025)

Overall users

• Population: ~34.6k residents; ~28k are age 13+.
• Social media users (13+): 20k–23k (roughly 70–80% of 13+). Note: Rural/older age mix and pockets of low-smartphone adoption likely keep usage a bit below urban WI.

Age groups (share using at least one platform)

• 13–17: ~90–95% (heavy daily use)
• 18–29: ~85–90%
• 30–49: ~75–85%
• 50–64: ~65–75%
• 65+: ~40–50%

Gender breakdown

• Overall users are roughly even female/male.
• Skews by platform (national patterns likely hold locally): Pinterest, TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat skew female; Reddit and X (Twitter) skew male; Facebook and YouTube are close to balanced.

Most‑used platforms among local social media users (share of users who use each platform)

• YouTube: 80–85%
• Facebook: 70–75% (dominant for community info)
• Instagram: 35–45%
• Snapchat: 30–40% (strong among teens/20s)
• TikTok: 25–35%
• Pinterest: 25–30% (DIY, recipes, crafts)
• LinkedIn: 12–18%
• X (Twitter): 10–15%
• Reddit: 10–15%
• WhatsApp: 8–12% (higher in immigrant/Hispanic households)
• Nextdoor: 5–10% (limited neighborhood coverage in rural areas)

Behavioral trends to know

• Community hub effect on Facebook: High engagement with local Groups and Pages (county/city, sheriff, school districts, libraries, churches). Common topics: weather/road updates, school announcements, obituaries, lost/found, local events, county fair, 4‑H/FFA, hunting and snow conditions.
• Marketplace and buy/sell/trade: Heavy use for farm equipment, tools, vehicles, garage sales, rentals, and seasonal services (snow removal, lawn care).
• Local news discovery: Facebook and YouTube drive traffic to local papers/radio; short clips and live streams for meetings and high‑school sports.
• Youth patterns: Snapchat for messaging and stories; TikTok/Reels and YouTube Shorts for video; Instagram for teams, clubs, and creators.
• Adult patterns: Facebook first; YouTube for how‑tos, news, and ag content; Pinterest among women for projects/recipes; limited Twitter/Reddit niches.
• Messaging: Facebook Messenger is default for many households; Snapchat DMs among teens/young adults; SMS remains common. WhatsApp usage is present but not widespread.
• Content format: Short video is growing fastest; practical, hyper‑local posts (utility outages, closures, deals) get the highest engagement.
• Timing: Engagement typically peaks early morning, lunch, and 7–9 pm; weather events and school sports nights drive spikes.

Notes and sources

• County‑specific platform data are rarely published; figures above are estimates adjusted for Clark County’s rural/older profile using Pew Research Center (2023–2024) U.S. usage rates, U.S. Census/ACS population by age, and rural Midwest adoption patterns.