What evidence has Crowds on Demand provided about its past clients and activities?
Executive summary
Crowds on Demand’s own public evidence about past clients and activities consists mainly of promotional case studies and CEO interviews that describe the company’s services and selective anecdotes, while the firm simultaneously says it usually does not disclose clients; independent public records and reporting provide a sharper but limited counterpoint. The company’s website and statements by founder Adam Swart are the primary sources for what Crowds on Demand itself has put on the record [1] [2] [3].
1. Company-provided case studies and service descriptions
Crowds on Demand’s website markets detailed service offerings and narrative case studies — touting examples such as organized protests that allegedly forced business settlements, PR stunts like faux paparazzi and brand ambassadors, and even a claim that a foreign government hired the firm to generate positive reception at the UN General Assembly — all presented as deliverables to prospective clients [1] [4].
2. CEO and founder statements: what the company admits publicly
Adam Swart has spoken to media describing how the business operates and what it has been asked to do, including saying the company received offers to amplify both sides of the Israel-Palestine debate and that the firm declined most such requests as “not constructive,” while also asserting the company had turned down more than 100 requests related to protests against Israel in 2024 [3] [5] [6].
3. Claims about evolution of staffing and recruitment
Swart and corporate materials have asserted an evolution in how Crowds on Demand sources participants: early reliance on actors in Los Angeles gave way, the company says, to hiring people who already had an interest in attending certain events (for example, environmental activists for factory protests), a narrative advanced by InfluenceWatch and repeated in interviews with Swart [6].
4. What the company refuses to disclose and the limits that creates
Despite its public marketing, Crowds on Demand has repeatedly stated it generally does not reveal client identities for business reasons, a stance Swart cites as necessary to preserve future work; this refusal is documented in the company’s public comments and coverage noting that the firm “usually does not reveal its clients” [6] [2]. That secrecy is meaningful: public-record checks highlighted by reporting found only one campaign with documented payments to the firm (the Six Californias effort), underscoring the gap between company claims and independently verifiable client lists [7].
5. Internal anecdotes versus independent reporting
The firm’s own anecdotes and promotional claims exist alongside investigative journalism that both corroborates and complicates the picture: undercover profiles have shown how the company runs mock fans and faux supporters and reporting by outlets such as The Lens and Poynter documented paid actors showing up at civic meetings — findings that sometimes trace the work to Crowds on Demand or to subcontracting relationships the firm acknowledged [8] [9]. Those independent accounts act as partial external evidence that the company’s activities do include paid participants, even as corporate statements emphasize nonpartisanship and selective refusals of controversial work [6] [9].
6. How to read the evidence the company itself provides
Taken at face value, the company’s public materials establish that Crowds on Demand offers a suite of crowd- and PR-related services and claims specific client successes and ethical boundaries; however, because the company declines to fully disclose client lists and relies on promotional narratives, external verification is limited and public records identified only one confirmed political client payment, creating an evidence gap that investigative reporting only partially fills [1] [4] [7] [9].