Crawford County

Key demographics for Crawford County, Wisconsin

Population

• Total population: ~16,100 (2020 Census); ~16,200 (2023 Census estimate)

Age

• Under 18: ~21%
• 65 and over: ~24%
• Median age: ~46 years
• Notes: Skews older than state average

Gender

• Female: ~50%

Race/ethnicity (alone or in combination; Hispanic is of any race)

• White (non-Hispanic): ~92–93%
• Hispanic/Latino: ~2–3%
• Two or more races: ~2–3%
• Black/African American: ~1%
• American Indian/Alaska Native: ~0.7–1%
• Asian: ~0.4–0.6%

Households and housing

• Households: ~7,000
• Average household size: ~2.2 persons
• Owner-occupied housing rate: ~77–79%

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census; American Community Survey (ACS) 2019–2023 5-year estimates; Census Bureau QuickFacts (2023).

Crawford County, WI snapshot (estimates based on census, Pew, and rural-WI trends):

• Population/density: ~16K residents; ~26–29 people/sq mi. Driftless Area bluffs and river valleys can cause broadband/cellular gaps; best connectivity in towns like Prairie du Chien.
• Estimated email users: ~10–13K residents use email. Method: ~12–13K adults, with ~85–92% using email; plus most teens 13–17.
• Age distribution of email use:
  • 18–29: ~98–99%
  • 30–49: ~97–99%
  • 50–64: ~90–95%
  • 65+: ~75–88% County skews older, so a sizable share of users are 50+.
• Gender split: Roughly even (≈50/50), with at most a 1–2 percentage-point higher use among women.
• Digital access:
  • Home broadband subscription: roughly 70–80% of households; fiber/cable in population centers, DSL/fixed wireless in rural townships.
  • Smartphone-only internet users: ~15–20% (higher than urban WI).
  • Offline/no subscription: ~10–20% of households, concentrated in low-density areas and valleys.
• Trends: Gradual fiber build-outs via state/federal grants; improving 5G along highways; continued reliance on public Wi‑Fi (libraries/schools) and mobile hotspots for outlying areas.

Summary of mobile phone usage in Crawford County, Wisconsin

Executive snapshot

• Population context: Small, aging, rural county (~16–17k residents; roughly 12–13k adults). Terrain is hilly with river valleys, which affects radio propagation.
• Overall adoption: High but below the Wisconsin average; coverage is adequate along highways and towns, with notable dead zones in valleys and ridge country. 5G is present but mostly low‑band; mid‑band 5G is sparse.

User estimates

• Adult smartphone users: Approximately 9,000–10,500 adults (about 75–82% of adults), versus roughly 85–90% statewide.
• Any mobile phone (smartphone or basic): Roughly 85–90% of adults (higher share of basic/feature phones than the state average).
• Mobile-only home internet households: Estimated 12–18% of households rely mainly on cellular data for home internet (e.g., phone hotspots or fixed wireless via LTE/5G), versus about 9–12% statewide.
• Multiline/IoT lines: Lower density than urban Wisconsin, but farms and small businesses use LTE devices for telemetry (sensors, cameras). Overall connections per capita are likely below the statewide figure that’s boosted by urban IoT.

Demographic breakdown (what differs most from state averages)

• Age
  • 65+: Larger share of the county population than the state overall. Smartphone adoption among seniors is 55–65% locally (vs ~70–80% statewide), with more basic‑phone use and shared family plans.
  • Under 35: Near‑universal smartphone ownership (>95%), but data usage patterns skew to prepaid and budget carriers more than in urban counties.
• Income and education
  • Lower median incomes correlate with more prepaid plans, smaller data buckets, and a higher chance of being mobile‑only for home internet.
  • ACP sunset effect: The end of the Affordable Connectivity Program in 2024 likely pushed some low‑income households to downgrade plans or consolidate to a single mobile connection, a sharper effect than in higher‑income urban counties.
• Race/ethnicity
  • The county is predominantly White; adoption disparities by race are therefore less pronounced than in statewide aggregates. Digital gaps are driven more by age, income, and geography.

Digital infrastructure and coverage notes

• Coverage pattern
  • 4G LTE: Generally reliable along US‑18/35, WI‑27/35, and around Prairie du Chien and other towns. Service degrades in hollows and bluffs; indoor coverage can be weak in older buildings.
  • 5G: Mostly low‑band 5G with performance similar to good LTE; mid‑band 5G (higher capacity) is limited to town centers or along main corridors. Statewide, mid‑band 5G is much more prevalent around metros.
• Carriers
  • Regional strength from carriers with rural footprints (e.g., UScellular) is comparatively higher than in urban Wisconsin; Verizon generally performs well along corridors; T‑Mobile performance improves in town but drops faster off‑highway. Users sometimes keep a secondary SIM/device for coverage redundancy—a behavior less common statewide.
• Backhaul and terrain constraints
  • Hills/valleys and river bluffs create shadowed areas and handoff issues; some residents near the Mississippi report tower selection/roaming quirks with Iowa‑side sites.
  • Tower density is lower than in metro counties, so capacity can tighten during events/tourism peaks (river recreation, hunting seasons).
• Fixed alternatives
  • Fiber and cable footprints are patchy outside town centers. Where fiber isn’t available, residents often lean on LTE/5G fixed wireless or phone hotspots for home access—more so than the state average.

Trends that differ from Wisconsin overall

• Adoption: 5–10 percentage points lower smartphone ownership overall, driven mainly by a larger senior share and affordability constraints.
• Device mix: Higher prevalence of basic phones and prepaid plans; more mobile‑only households.
• Coverage quality: Greater reliance on low‑band 5G/4G; mid‑band 5G and overall capacity lag state urban/suburban norms.
• Redundancy behavior: More people carry or keep access to multiple networks (e.g., a work phone or hotspot on a different carrier) to cope with dead zones—less common in metro areas.
• Seasonal variability: Noticeable performance dips during tourism peaks; less of an issue in cities with denser cell grids.

Method notes

• Estimates synthesize: US and Wisconsin adoption patterns from national surveys (e.g., Pew), county demographics from Census/ACS (older, rural profile), and FCC/mobile provider coverage characteristics as of 2023–2024. Exact tower counts or carrier rankings vary by micro‑location; figures are provided as ranges to avoid false precision.

Below is a concise, best-available snapshot. Exact, county-level platform statistics aren’t published; figures are estimates derived from Pew Research Center’s 2024 social-media use, rural vs. urban splits, US Census/ACS age mix for rural Wisconsin, and ad-platform reach indicators.

Overall footprint

• Population: ~16–16.5k; adults (18+): ~13–13.5k
• Adult social-media users: ~9–10k (≈65–75% of adults). Teens (13–17): ~1.2–1.6k, with very high social use (esp. Snapchat/TikTok).

Estimated platform reach among adults in Crawford County

• YouTube: 70–78% of adults
• Facebook: 60–68%
• Instagram: 28–35%
• TikTok: 20–28%
• Snapchat: 18–25% overall; among ages 13–24, ~60–80%
• Pinterest: 25–33% of adults; ~40–55% of adult women
• X (Twitter): 10–15%
• LinkedIn: 7–12%
• Reddit: 8–12%
• Nextdoor: <5%

Age mix of local social-media users (approx.)

• 13–17: 10–13% (heavy Snapchat/TikTok; light Facebook)
• 18–29: 17–20% (Instagram, TikTok, YouTube; Snapchat for messaging)
• 30–44: 24–27% (Facebook, Instagram, YouTube; Pinterest among women)
• 45–64: 33–36% (Facebook, YouTube; some Pinterest)
• 65+: 18–22% (Facebook, YouTube; limited Instagram/TikTok)

Gender breakdown (approx. among users)

• Female: 52–55% (over-index on Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest)
• Male: 45–48% (over-index on YouTube; modestly higher on X/Reddit)

Behavioral trends to know

• Community-first on Facebook: High engagement in local groups (buy/sell, school/activity boosters, church/community events, storm and road updates). Facebook Marketplace is the default for local buying.
• Video is practical: YouTube for how‑to/DIY, farm and small‑engine repair, fishing/hunting, weather, Packers/high school sports, and church streams.
• Short-form growth pockets: TikTok/Reels among 16–34 for rural humor, pets, homesteading, fitness, local eats; still modest beyond that age.
• Messaging habits: Facebook Messenger is ubiquitous; Snapchat is the teen/college friend network. WhatsApp use is low.
• Trust and voice: Content from known local entities (schools, counties, clinics, churches, local businesses) outperforms “out-of-town” brands. Real local faces, names, and place cues matter.
• Timing: Peaks around 6–8 AM, noon, and 7–9 PM; weekends strong. During planting/harvest, mid-day engagement from ag workers dips.
• Seasonality/events: Spikes around county fair, fishing opener/river tourism, hunting season, high school sports, school-year milestones, and severe weather.
• Commerce: Facebook Marketplace and page DMs drive inquiries; Instagram Shop has niche traction with younger women; classifieds-style posts still effective.
• Ad responsiveness: Works best with tight radius targeting (15–25 miles), event tie-ins, giveaways, and creative that references local schools, landmarks, or seasons. Short captions, vertical video, and clear calls to visit/DM/call perform best. Keep videos light for patchy broadband.

Notes on uncertainty

• Percentages above are localized estimates (not official counts) based on rural-adjusted national usage and platform reach tools. For a campaign, validate by checking current audience estimates in Meta/TikTok/Snap ads managers targeted to Crawford County zip codes and by piloting small tests to benchmark local CPMs/CTR.