KELO notes Google's claim that the search giant helped generate $55.6 million in economic activity in South Dakota in 2013. According to Google's nationwide economic report, that's the third-lowest amount of Googly economic activity, behind only Alaska and North Dakota.

A low raw-dollar figure is to be expected, since we have the fifth-lowest state population. But compare the per-capita economic impact Google has in our region:

  Google EconActiv (millions) Biz/Orgs using Google Ads population (2013) Google EconActiv per capita
SD $55.6 2,300 844,877 $65.81
MN $1,900.0 24,000 5,420,380 $350.53
IA $147.0 8,900 3,090,416 $47.57
ND $52.7 1,600 723,393 $72.85
MT $64.0 4,000 1,015,165 $63.04
NE $1,400.0 6,000 1,868,516 $749.26
WY $70.2 1,800 582,658 $120.48

Google stirred up $65.81 in economic activity per South Dakotan in 2013. Google thus rang the relative till harder here than in Iowa or Montana. But in Wyoming, Google generated almost twice as much business per person. In Minnesota, there was over five times as much Google economic juice per person, and in Nebraska, over eleven times.

The national per-capita figure for Google economic activity was $353.65. Here's a list of all states (plus DC) with population and Google economic impact per capita:

Rank State population (2013) Google Econ/Activ Google Econ/Activ per capita
1 District of Columbia 646,449 882 $1,392.43
 2 New York 19,651,127 18300 $934.81
3 Massachusetts 6,692,824 5800 $872.80
4 Vermont 626,630 522 $833.93
5 Nebraska 1,868,516 1400 $754.57
6 California 38,332,521 25400 $668.42
7 Illinois 12,882,135 8100 $629.46
8 Utah 2,900,872 1760 $616.49
9 Washington 6,971,406 4200 $609.11
10 Nevada 2,790,136 1280 $464.72
11 Connecticut 3,596,080 1520 $423.19
12 Minnesota 5,420,380 1900 $353.18
13 Colorado 5,268,367 1800 $346.86
14 Florida 19,552,860 6500 $336.43
15 Arizona 6,626,624 2100 $320.55
16 Delaware 925,749 283 $308.60
17 New Jersey 8,899,339 2200 $248.09
18 Georgia 9,992,167 2400 $242.04
19 Pennsylvania 12,773,801 2800 $219.36
20 Maine 1,328,302 286 $215.28
21 Texas 26,448,193 5600 $214.88
 22 Kansas 2,893,957 611 $211.76
23 Virginia 8,260,405 1700 $207.66
24 Maryland 5,928,814 1200 $203.91
25 Oregon 3,930,065 780 $200.01
26 Missouri 6,044,171 1200 $199.19
27 Michigan 9,895,622 1700 $172.02
28 Rhode Island 1,051,511 173 $164.71
29 New Hampshire 1,323,459 206 $155.87
30 Ohio 11,570,808 1800 $155.80
31 Wisconsin 5,742,713 862 $150.58
 32 South Carolina 4,774,839 650 $137.61
 33 Tennessee 6,495,978 815 $126.26
34 Wyoming 582,658 70.2 $121.74
35 Indiana 6,570,902 762 $116.55
36 North Carolina 9,848,060 1100 $112.84
37 Idaho 1,612,136 164 $102.78
38 West Virginia 1,854,304 174 $93.72
39 North Dakota 723,393 52.7 $75.14
40 Arkansas 2,959,373 201 $68.14
41 South Dakota 844,877 55.6 $66.66
42 Montana 1,015,165 64 $63.65
43 Hawaii 1,404,054 82.3 $59.20
44 Kentucky 4,395,295 255 $58.22
45 Oklahoma 3,850,568 199 $52.15
46 Iowa 3,090,416 147 $47.80
47 Alabama 4,833,722 203 $42.14
48 Alaska 735,132 27.3 $37.38
49 Louisiana 4,625,470 170 $36.94
50 New Mexico 2,085,287 75.5 $36.24
 51 Mississippi 2,991,207 60.2 $20.16

Notice that the top ten are an interesting mix of urban centers and rural places, while the bottom ten have are more uniformly large, rural states. If we take Google economic impact as a sign of overall online economic activity, these data suggest that rural states can exploit online tools (not just search, but online ads, YouTube, and analytics) to generate revenue as effectively as urban places like New York and Massachusetts.

These numbers may also suggest something about interstate trade. It is possible that the states with lower Google economic impact per capita have more insular markets, with more businesses relying on local sales and word of mouth. I am really curious, though, what difference has Nebraskans spending so much more time and money on Google tools than we South Dakotans next door.