Criticisms and controversies surrounding Crowds on Demand
Executive summary
Crowds on Demand sells staged audiences, paid protesters, faux paparazzi and related services and has been repeatedly accused of facilitating “astroturfing” and deceiving the public, a charge levelled by academics, local journalists and national outlets [1] [2] [3]. The company and its founder frame the work as advocacy, event production and publicity, arguing they operate openly and across the political spectrum, but several high-profile episodes and investigative reports have crystallized ethical and political controversies [4] [5] [6].
1. Business model and services: spectacle for hire
Crowds on Demand markets itself as a provider of “impactful advocacy campaigns, demonstrations, PR stunts, crowds for hire and corporate events,” offering everything from hired fans and fake paparazzi to paid protesters and “celebrity arrival” services for clients in multiple U.S. cities [4] [1] [6]. The firm presents these capabilities as tools to amplify messages, secure media coverage, and create theatrical moments—work the company says has helped win business deals and advocacy wins [4].
2. The core criticism: astroturfing and deception
Scholars and columnists have accused the company of deceiving the public by manufacturing apparent grassroots support and public sentiment, an allegation captured in academic criticism and media columns that emphasize the pretense of popularity Crowds on Demand can sell [1] [2]. Critics argue that paying people to pose as spontaneous supporters or protesters distorts democratic signals, undermines genuine civic organizing, and misleads reporters and officials relying on visible public turnout as a metric of legitimacy [2] [6].
3. Notable documented episodes that fueled controversy
Investigations have identified specific episodes that crystallized concern: public records tying Crowds on Demand to the Six Californias campaign, reporting that subcontractors hired the firm to supply paid speakers and supporters for an Entergy-backed energy project in New Orleans, and the company’s early coverage about staging faux fans and paparazzi—each item cited in local and national reporting [1] [3] [2]. Those episodes drew scrutiny because paid participants shaped public hearings and media narratives around policy decisions affecting communities, as reported by investigative outlets [2] [1].
4. Political entanglements and harassment allegations
Beyond astroturfing, the firm has been accused in the public record of conducting targeted campaigns with real-world consequences: reporting and watchdog sites recount allegations that the company or associated contractors were used to mobilize demonstrators in ways that pressured institutions or individuals, and InfluenceWatch catalogs allegations of crowd activity linked to efforts against public figures and boards [3] [6]. Some critics say these tactics can escalate from PR stunts into personal harassment when crowds are directed at homes, institutions or sensitive public processes—charges that have animated part of the backlash [3].
5. Company defense and contested neutrality
Crowds on Demand and its founder, Adam Swart, position the business as a legitimate, nonpartisan tool for advocacy and event production and publicly state limitations such as refusing illegal activity—an argument the company has made in media interviews while noting it works for clients across the political spectrum [4] [7] [5]. That defense does not erase concerns about undisclosed clients and third-party subcontracting, nor does it fully answer critics who say the optics of paid participation inherently bias public debate even when technically legal [3] [2].
6. Effects on journalism, public trust and regulation debates
Journalists and scholars warn that the industry makes reporting and democratic discernment harder by blurring real grassroots action with staged performance, a dynamic documented in detailed profiles and investigative pieces that placed reporters inside gigs and traced consequences for civic processes [2] [6]. Those accounts have spurred conversations about transparency—whether event attendees should disclose payment, whether venues or councils should vet speakers, and whether policymakers need rules to preserve authentic civic input—but definitive regulatory outcomes are not settled in the reporting provided [2] [3].
Conclusion
Crowds on Demand sits at the intersection of PR innovation and civic ethics: the company’s open marketing of paid crowds has generated business and high-visibility stunts, but repeated investigative reports and academic critiques argue that those tactics can mislead the public, distort policymaking, and complicate journalistic verification, while the company insists it operates legally and for varied clients—leaving the debate centered on transparency, accountability and the boundaries of acceptable advocacy [4] [2] [1] [3].