What is Crowds on Demand and how does it work?
Executive summary
Crowds on Demand is a U.S.-based commercial firm that sells staffed crowds, staged publicity experiences and advocacy-oriented services—ranging from fake paparazzi and hired “fans” to organized demonstrations, phone-banking and virtual social-proof campaigns—operating since 2012 and founded by Adam Swart [1] [2]. The company presents itself as a turnkey provider for PR stunts, corporate events and “impactful advocacy,” but it has also been repeatedly criticized and labeled by some observers as an enabler of astroturfing and deceptive public influence [3] [4] [5].
1. What Crowds on Demand is and where it operates
Founded in October 2012 by Adam Swart, a former Patch journalist, Crowds on Demand markets itself as a public relations and communications service that supplies paid participants, leaders and infrastructure for events and campaigns across major U.S. cities and beyond, with offices and satellite presences cited in places such as Beverly Hills, Phoenix and multiple metropolitan areas [1] [6] [2]. The firm’s own website advertises nationwide availability for demonstrations, PR stunts, corporate events and advocacy work, and third‑party profiles describe it as a marketing firm with virtual capabilities like letter‑writing and phone‑banking in addition to in‑person crowds [3] [6].
2. The product lineup: from paparazzi to “movement creation”
Services run the gamut from lighthearted celebrity‑experience packages—paparazzi, limousines and adoring faux fans—to more political or advocacy offerings such as staffed protests, rallies, turn‑key “advocacy groups” with trained leaders, phone‑banking, mass emailing and social‑proof campaigns; the company explicitly markets its ability to “create movements from the ground up” for local zoning fights through international disputes [7] [2] [6]. Media reporting documents early popularity for celebrity airport experiences and notes the company’s shift into supplying actors for political rallies and under‑attended events, while company materials emphasize both in‑person and virtual services [5] [3] [6].
3. Clients, secrecy and documented uses
Swart has said Crowds on Demand has worked with numerous campaigns and candidates but generally declines to name clients; public records and reporting have identified a small number of confirmed political engagements but otherwise underscore the firm’s practice of client confidentiality [1] [4]. The company drew public scrutiny after instances such as paid speakers at a New Orleans council hearing and broader media coverage tying the model to astroturfing; it has been showcased on programs critiquing manufactured public support and was named in litigation and investigative reporting as part of that controversy [1] [5].
4. Criticism, defense and the ethics of hired crowds
Scholars and journalists have accused the business model of deceiving the public by manufacturing the appearance of grassroots support—“astroturfing”—and critics argue that paying people to pose as organic supporters can distort democratic processes and public debate [1] [5]. Crowds on Demand and Swart counter that the service is non‑partisan, that many participants are genuine advocates and that the firm also provides legitimate event staffing and marketing services; the company says it turns down work it deems ineffective or unethical, though independent verification of such screening is limited in the public record [4] [8].
5. How it works operationally and the broader marketplace
Operationally, the firm assembles rosters of paid participants and leadership, coordinates logistics, supplies scripted or trained speakers when requested, and offers digital amplification like phone‑banks and letter campaigns—essentially packaging people, messaging and delivery for hire—while competitors and clones have emerged globally using similar tactics [6] [5]. Public reporting and company materials show a small core staff augmented by local actors and contractors; beyond what’s publicly available, details on pricing, vetting processes and client lists remain opaque, limiting independent assessment of impact and accountability [6] [9].
Conclusion
Crowds on Demand occupies a contested space between event production and political influence: it legally sells a service that can be benign PR or personally theatrical experiences, yet the same mechanics can be used to manufacture perceived public consent, prompting wide ethical debate and calls for greater transparency—claims and defenses are documented across company statements and investigative reporting, but significant gaps remain where public records and independent audits are absent [3] [5] [4].