Richland County

Richland County, Wisconsin — key demographics

Population

• 17,304 (2020 Census)
• ~17.2k (2019–2023 ACS 5-year estimate)

Age

• Median age: ~45 years
• Under 18: ~21%
• 18–64: ~56%
• 65 and over: ~23%

Sex

• Female: ~50.4%
• Male: ~49.6%

Race/ethnicity (ACS 2019–2023)

• White (non-Hispanic): ~92%
• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~3%
• Two or more races (non-Hispanic): ~3%
• Black or African American (non-Hispanic): ~0.6%
• Asian (non-Hispanic): ~0.5%
• American Indian/Alaska Native (non-Hispanic): ~0.4%

Households and housing (ACS 2019–2023)

• Households: ~7.3k
• Average household size: ~2.27
• Family households: ~61% of households
• Households with children <18: ~26%
• Living alone: ~31% of households; 65+ living alone: ~14%
• Owner-occupied: ~73%; renter-occupied: ~27%
• Median household income: ~$56k
• Persons in poverty: ~12%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census and 2019–2023 American Community Survey 5-year estimates. Figures are estimates where noted.

Email usage snapshot: Richland County, Wisconsin

• Population and density: ~17,300 residents across ~589 sq mi (≈29 people/sq mi), predominantly rural.
• Estimated email users: ~12,400 adult users (≈91% of ~13,700 adults).
• Age distribution of email users (users ≈ share of adults × typical U.S. adoption by age):
  • 18–29: ~2,100 users (≈97% of ~2,200 adults)
  • 30–49: ~3,700 users (≈96% of ~3,800 adults)
  • 50–64: ~3,400 users (≈92% of ~3,700 adults)
  • 65+: ~3,200 users (≈80% of ~4,000 adults)
• Gender split: Near-even; ~6,200 female and ~6,200 male email users.
• Digital access and trends:
  • ~88% of households have a computer.
  • ~81% have a broadband internet subscription; ~6% are smartphone-only; ~13% have no home internet.
  • Fixed broadband availability is higher in and around Richland Center and along main corridors, with notable gaps in outlying hill-and-valley areas; mobile coverage is broadest along primary roads.
• Insights:
  • Email is effectively universal among working-age adults; the main constraint is access, not willingness.
  • Seniors are the growth segment for digital inclusion; improving home broadband in low-density zones would yield the largest gains in email adoption and use frequency.

Richland County, Wisconsin: mobile phone usage summary (focus on how it differs from the state)

Definitive context

• Population baseline: 17,304 (2020 Census).
• Rural/terrain context: Driftless Area topography (ridges/valleys) introduces signal shadowing not typical of flatter parts of Wisconsin, affecting indoor coverage and consistency even where maps show nominal service.

User estimates

• Unique mobile phone users (any mobile, adults and teens): about 14,500 ±600 residents. This derives from the county’s age structure and near-universal cellular ownership among working-age adults, plus high teen adoption.
• Smartphone users: about 12,700 ±800 residents. Lower than Wisconsin’s urban counties because of an older population and cost sensitivity, but still the dominant device type.
• Smartphone-only home internet households: estimated 18–22% of households, higher than the statewide share, reflecting patchier fixed-broadband options in outlying townships.

Demographic breakdown (usage patterns)

• Age
  • 18–34: very high smartphone adoption (≈95%+), app-first usage; aligns with state trends.
  • 35–64: high adoption (≈88–92%), but lower use of data-heavy or urban-centric apps than statewide peers.
  • 65+: materially lower smartphone adoption (≈65–70%), with a noticeable minority using basic/flip phones; this age skew is more pronounced than the state overall and is the main driver of lower countywide smartphone penetration.
• Income/education
  • Lower median household income than the Wisconsin average correlates with higher Android share, greater prevalence of budget/prepaid plans, and more conservative data usage. This diverges from the more iOS-heavy, postpaid mix in metro counties.
• Work/commute
  • More agriculture, trades, and dispersed worksites lead to stronger emphasis on voice/text reliability and coverage along rural corridors rather than in-building 5G speed—unlike urban Wisconsin, where capacity and mid-band 5G speeds dominate priorities.

Digital infrastructure highlights

• Carriers and spectrum presence
  • UScellular maintains a relatively strong footprint in this part of southwest Wisconsin, alongside Verizon, AT&T (including FirstNet), and T-Mobile. UScellular’s low-band holdings help with reach; T-Mobile’s 600 MHz and 2.5 GHz are present around population centers; Verizon/AT&T low-band 5G is common, with selective C-band deployment along primary corridors.
• Coverage pattern
  • 4G LTE: broadly available along main routes and towns; valley shadowing and building penetration remain recurring pain points off-corridor.
  • 5G: low-band 5G covers most populated areas; mid-band 5G (fast) is present in and around Richland Center and along key highways but is less continuous countywide than in metro Wisconsin.
• Performance expectations (typical, not peak)
  • LTE in rural zones: ~5–40 Mbps down, highly terrain-dependent.
  • Low-band 5G: ~40–120 Mbps with good reach.
  • Mid-band 5G (where available): ~100–300 Mbps; coverage footprints are smaller than state urban averages.
• Backhaul and density
  • Fewer macro sites per square mile than the state’s metro counties; some sites still rely on microwave backhaul. This reduces capacity during peak hours compared with fiber-fed urban clusters.
• Public safety and resilience
  • FirstNet build-outs have improved AT&T coverage on key corridors and in civic locations; terrain still limits deep-valley reliability without in-building solutions.

How Richland County’s trends differ from Wisconsin overall

• Lower overall smartphone penetration, driven by a larger 65+ population and more basic-phone use.
• Higher share of smartphone-only home internet households, tied to sparser fixed broadband outside towns.
• Greater reliance on coverage reach (low-band LTE/5G and UScellular presence) over ultra-high 5G speeds; mid-band 5G is less continuous than state urban norms.
• More variable indoor service and dead zones due to ridge-and-valley terrain, a constraint less common in much of the state.
• Plan mix skews more budget/prepaid and Android, reflecting cost sensitivity; metro Wisconsin skews more postpaid and iOS.
• Wireless-only voice households are likely somewhat lower than the statewide average because landlines persist among older residents, bucking the state’s faster shift to wireless-only voice.

Bottom line

• Most residents carry mobile phones and the majority use smartphones, but adoption and usage patterns are tempered by age structure, income, and terrain.
• Coverage is generally adequate along primary corridors, with meaningful gaps and variability off-corridor; 5G exists countywide in low-band form, while fast mid-band 5G is concentrated near population centers and major roads.
• Compared with Wisconsin overall, Richland County prioritizes reach and reliability over peak speed, exhibits more smartphone-only internet reliance, and shows slower migration to all-wireless households among seniors.

Social media usage in Richland County, WI (2025 snapshot)

What this is: County-level estimates built from the latest U.S. Census Bureau ACS demographics for Richland County and Pew Research Center 2024 social media adoption patterns for U.S. adults (with rural breakouts) and 2023 data for teens. There is no official, platform-by-platform county census; figures below are modeled, point-in-time estimates.

Population context

• Population: ≈17K residents; largely rural, median age mid‑40s (ACS 2023).
• Adults (18+): ≈13–14K; Teens (13–17): ≈900–1,100.

User stats (any social platform)

• Adults using social media: ≈11–12K (≈80–85% of adults).
• Total users including teens: ≈13–14K countywide.

Most‑used platforms (adults; modeled share of adult residents)

• YouTube: 80–85%
• Facebook: 65–70%
• Instagram: 35–40%
• Pinterest: 30–35% (skews female)
• TikTok: 25–30%
• Snapchat: 20–25% (concentrated under 30)
• WhatsApp: 15–20%
• LinkedIn: 15–20% (skews to college‑educated, 25–49)
• X (Twitter): 10–15%
• Reddit: 10–15%

Age groups (usage patterns and platform mix)

• Teens 13–17: Near‑universal YouTube; TikTok, Snapchat, and Instagram are core daily apps. Facebook minimal except for groups/events. Heavy short‑video creation/consumption and private messaging streaks.
• 18–29: Heaviest multi‑platform use; YouTube and Instagram dominant; Snapchat and TikTok frequent daily use; Facebook used for local groups/Marketplace and family.
• 30–49: Broadest reach across platforms; Facebook (including Messenger) and YouTube are primary; Instagram and TikTok secondary; Pinterest notable among parents; LinkedIn used by a minority.
• 50–64: Facebook and YouTube dominate; Pinterest moderate; Instagram/TikTok adoption rising but not daily for most.
• 65+: Facebook remains the default social hub; YouTube for how‑tos and news clips; limited Instagram/TikTok.

Gender breakdown (adults; directional)

• Women: More likely than men to use Facebook and Pinterest; strong daily use of Facebook groups/Marketplace and Instagram Stories/Reels.
• Men: More likely than women to use YouTube, Reddit, X, and LinkedIn; higher engagement with long‑form video, sports, and tech content.
• Overall adoption gap between women and men is small; differences are mainly by platform choice and content type.

Behavioral trends locally

• Facebook as the community backbone: High engagement in local groups (schools, events, buy/sell, mutual aid) and with municipal/sheriff updates; Marketplace is a major driver of daily opens.
• Video first: YouTube for how‑to, farm/homestead, hunting/outdoors, and local sports; Reels/Shorts/TikTok for entertainment and local happenings.
• Messaging > public posting: Facebook Messenger, Snapchat, and Instagram DMs dominate daily interactions; many “view more than post.”
• Event‑driven spikes: Local festivals, weather incidents, school athletics, and road closures trigger sharp, short‑term surges across Facebook and YouTube.
• Time‑of‑day patterns: Morning (6–8am) headlines and weather; noon check‑ins; evening (7–10pm) is peak scrolling/video time. Weekend peaks around local sports and church/community events.
• Connectivity effect: Patchy rural broadband nudges toward buffered/short video and offline‑friendly consumption; households with strong home broadband stream more YouTube/CTV and longer videos.
• Commerce and services: Local businesses lean on Facebook Pages/Groups and boosted posts; Instagram effective for food, boutiques, salons; younger audiences respond to TikTok/Snap‑centric short video.
• Trust and locality: Users favor locally authored content, known community admins, and county/city pages; skepticism toward anonymous pages and national political content.

Sources and basis

• U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS) 2023, Richland County, WI (population/age context).
• Pew Research Center, Social Media Use in 2024 (adult and rural adoption, platform rankings).
• Pew Research Center, Teens, Social Media and Technology 2023 (teen platform use).

Note on precision: Percentages are modeled for Richland County by applying Pew’s age/rural platform adoption rates to ACS county demographics; treat them as best‑fit estimates for planning rather than exact counts.