Grant County

Grant County, Wisconsin — key demographics (latest U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2019–2023 5-year estimates)

• Population: ~52,200
• Median age: ~37 years

Age distribution

• Under 18: ~20%
• 18–24: ~16% (elevated due to UW–Platteville)
• 25–44: ~24%
• 45–64: ~24%
• 65 and over: ~16%

Sex

• Male: ~51%
• Female: ~49%

Race and ethnicity

• White (non-Hispanic): ~93%
• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~3%
• Black or African American: ~1–2%
• Asian: ~1%
• American Indian/Alaska Native: <1%
• Two or more races/Other: ~2%

Households and housing

• Households: ~20,700
• Average household size: ~2.4
• Family households: ~63%
• With children under 18: ~28%
• Housing tenure: ~74% owner-occupied, ~26% renter-occupied

Notes

• Figures are rounded for clarity and reflect ACS 2019–2023 5-year estimates (U.S. Census Bureau).

• Scope: Grant County, WI population ≈52,000; density ≈45 people per square mile.
• Estimated adult email users: ~37,700 (≈92% of 18+ residents).

Age distribution of email users (approximate share of adult users):

• 18–24: ~6,600 (18%)
• 25–44: ~12,500 (33%)
• 45–64: ~12,000 (32%)
• 65+: ~6,600 (17%)

Gender split among users: roughly even (≈51% female, 49% male), with no material difference in adoption or frequency.

Digital access and trends:

• Faster cable/fiber and higher subscription rates in Platteville, Lancaster, and Fennimore; more reliance on DSL and fixed wireless in rural townships.
• Strong mobile coverage (4G countywide; growing 5G near population centers and along US‑151) sustains smartphone-based email, especially among students and lower‑income users.
• Email use is stable to rising, with notable growth among adults 65+ as device adoption, telehealth, and e‑commerce expand.

Connectivity context:

• The county’s large rural footprint leaves pockets with lower speeds and higher latency, shifting some email activity to off‑peak times or to mobile networks.
• University presence in Platteville increases daily email intensity and early adoption among 18–24s.

Grant County, Wisconsin: mobile phone usage summary (distinct from statewide patterns)

Population baseline

• Population: 52,731 (2020 Census). College influence from UW–Platteville skews the county younger than many rural peers while the outlying townships remain older and more sparsely populated.

Estimated users and device mix (2024)

• Mobile phone users: approximately 45,000–50,000 residents use a mobile phone (about 85–95% of residents, aligning with national rural ownership but slightly below Wisconsin’s metro-heavy average).
• Smartphone users: roughly 37,000–40,000 (about 70–76% of all residents; 83–88% of adults), a few points lower than the statewide share due to older rural segments.
• Line types: a higher-than-state-average share of prepaid and value carriers (boosted by students and budget-conscious rural households); postpaid remains dominant around major carriers.

Demographic usage patterns

• 18–24: Above-average share of the county population (UW–Platteville). Near-universal smartphone ownership and heavy data use; frequent plan churn and BYOD activation around academic terms.
• 25–44: High smartphone penetration and mobile-first media/commerce; significant commuter usage along US-151 (Platteville–Dubuque/Madison corridors).
• 45–64: High cell ownership, slightly lower smartphone share vs state average; heavier reliance on voice/SMS for work in agriculture, trades, and logistics.
• 65+: Smartphone ownership trails state average but continues to rise; many maintain basic or entry-level smartphones and rely more on voice/SMS. Wireless-only (no landline) is common even among seniors due to limited landline/fiber value outside towns.
• Income and housing: Lower median incomes than the state average and a sizable renter/student segment in Platteville tilt usage to budget plans and hotspotting. Mobile-only home internet is notably more common than statewide where wired options are weaker.

Digital infrastructure and performance

• Coverage and carriers: Verizon and UScellular provide the most consistent rural coverage in the Driftless topography; AT&T is strong along highways and towns and supports FirstNet for public safety; T-Mobile’s extended-range 5G covers most population centers and major roads with ongoing infill.
• 5G availability: Low-band 5G is widespread along US-151, US-61, US-18, WI-35/80/81 and in towns (Platteville, Lancaster, Fennimore, Boscobel). Mid-band 5G (faster) is concentrated in Platteville and select corridors; rural valleys still lean on LTE or low-band 5G. This urban–rural split is sharper than the statewide picture.
• Speeds (typical user experience):
  • Towns with mid-band 5G: roughly 100–400 Mbps down, 10–40 Mbps up.
  • Rural low-band 5G/LTE: roughly 5–50 Mbps down, 2–10 Mbps up, with terrain-driven variability and occasional dead zones near river valleys and ridgelines.
• Fixed wireless/home internet: T-Mobile 5G Home and Verizon 5G/LTE Home are available in and around Platteville and some hamlets; UScellular and regional fixed-wireless (e.g., Bug Tussel–backed builds) expand coverage in sparsely populated areas. The county leans more on fixed wireless than the state overall.
• Wireline: Charter Spectrum cable serves Platteville and a few communities with 100–1000 Mbps; fiber-to-the-home remains patchy outside town centers compared with the state average, raising the relative importance of mobile and fixed wireless.
• Public safety: FirstNet (AT&T) adoption has improved resiliency and priority access for emergency services; this is impactful given severe weather and topographic shadows.

Trends that differ from Wisconsin statewide

• More pronounced urban–rural gap: A larger share of residents live in low-density, hilly terrain that challenges signal propagation; coverage disparities and speed variability are greater than state averages.
• Higher reliance on mobile and fixed wireless for home connectivity: Due to thinner fiber/cable build-outs, mobile-only households and hotspot usage exceed the statewide norm.
• Student-driven dynamics: Seasonal activation spikes, high data consumption, and greater use of budget and prepaid plans around Platteville differentiate the county from non-university rural counties and the state overall.
• Carrier mix: UScellular and Verizon play an outsized role in reliable rural coverage compared with some Wisconsin metros where AT&T and T-Mobile parity is higher.
• Cross-border effects: Proximity to Dubuque (IA) and the Mississippi corridor leads to roaming/handoffs and plan selection tuned for tri-state travel, a nuance less common statewide.

Key insights

• Expect steady growth in smartphone penetration among 65+ and further migration to wireless-only households, but overall smartphone share will likely remain a few points below the state average until fiber expands in rural areas.
• Mid-band 5G densification in Platteville and along US-151 will drive the most noticeable mobile performance gains; targeted rural infill and additional tower sites are needed to close valley/ridgeline gaps.
• Fixed wireless (5G/LTE) will remain a primary broadband on-ramp for farms and dispersed homes, sustaining higher-than-average mobile data consumption versus wired-focused Wisconsin metros.

Grant County, WI — social media usage snapshot (2024)

Population base

• Total residents: ~52,000 (ACS 2023)
• Adults (18+): ~40,000–41,000
• Teens (13–17): ~3,000–3,300 (estimate based on county age structure)

Overall reach and user counts

• Adult social media users: ~31,000–34,000 (roughly 75–84% of adults)
• Teen social media users (13–17): ~2,800–3,100 (roughly 90–95% of teens)

Most‑used platforms (share of adult residents; estimates adapted from 2023–2024 Pew Research applied to county population)

• YouTube: ~80–85%
• Facebook: ~65–70%
• Instagram: ~45–50%
• TikTok: ~30–35%
• Pinterest: ~30–35%
• Snapchat: ~25–30%
• LinkedIn: ~25–30%
• X (Twitter): ~20–23%
• Reddit: ~20–23%
• Nextdoor: ~10–15% (varies by neighborhood density; Facebook Groups often substitute)

Age-group patterns (who uses what most)

• Teens 13–17: Nearly universal use; top platforms YouTube, TikTok, Snapchat, then Instagram. Facebook is secondary for this group.
• Ages 18–24: Heavy on YouTube, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok; Facebook used but not primary. Strong short‑form video and DM/messaging usage.
• Ages 25–44: Facebook + Instagram lead; YouTube near‑universal; TikTok adoption growing. Messenger/WhatsApp for family and seller contact.
• Ages 45–64: Facebook and YouTube dominate; Instagram moderate; TikTok/X smaller but rising for news and hobbies.
• 65+: Facebook first, YouTube second; others niche.

Gender breakdown (adult tendencies)

• Overall adoption is similar by gender.
• Notable skews:
  • Pinterest: women use at roughly 2–3× the rate of men.
  • Snapchat and Instagram: modest female skew among 18–29.
  • Reddit and X: modest male skew.
  • Facebook and YouTube: broadly balanced.

Behavioral trends observed in counties like Grant with a college hub and rural communities

• Facebook Groups are central for local life: school and municipal updates, buy/sell/trade, county fair, youth sports, farm and outdoors communities.
• Short‑form video is the growth engine: TikTok, Reels, and Shorts drive discovery for food, events, housing, and local services—especially among 18–34.
• Messaging is the default contact method: Facebook Messenger and Snapchat DMs for quick queries, bookings, and customer service; fast responses influence purchase decisions.
• “Local proof” matters: recommendations in community groups and user‑generated photos outperform polished ads for trust and engagement.
• College‑town effect (Platteville): weekday midday and late‑evening spikes; strong Snapchat/Instagram story usage for events and promotions; high demand for quick, vertical video content.
• Rural practicality: YouTube “how‑to” and equipment/DIY content has outsized engagement; Facebook Marketplace is a key channel for vehicles, tools, rentals, and seasonal gigs.

Notes and sources

• Population and age base: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2023.
• Platform penetration and age/gender patterns: Pew Research Center social media studies (2023–2024). Estimates above apply national usage rates to Grant County’s population to yield county‑level figures. Actual local adoption can vary modestly by town and neighborhood connectivity.