What documented examples exist of Crowds on Demand campaigns and how were participants compensated in each case?
Executive summary
Crowds on Demand has been publicly documented providing hired participants for political campaigns, corporate publicity stunts, and protests since its founding in 2012, with media and company materials identifying specific engagements but offering limited line-item payment disclosures [1] [2]. Reporting and industry summaries indicate participants are generally paid but precise amounts are rarely published by the firm; outside interviews and pricing analyses place typical per-person payments in the low hundreds of dollars, while job listings and the company website describe variable compensation and roles [3] [4] [5].
1. Notable political gigs: campaign boosts and alleged mayoral rallies
Public records and coverage tie Crowds on Demand to multiple political efforts: the company itself has claimed work with state and presidential campaigns though it largely declines to name clients publicly, while reporting has identified a 2010s ballot initiative client—Six Californias—as a documented payor [1] [6]. A long-circulated claim that Anthony Weiner paid hired actors to attend his 2013 mayoral campaign events appears in media summaries and on the company’s Wikipedia entry as sourced to New York Post reporting, though the company’s public-facing materials and secondary sources stop short of corroborating precise payment terms for that specific allegation [1]. Founder Adam Swart has acknowledged early political work in Los Angeles and said “big players” used the service to stage counter-protests and bolster events, which establishes the firm’s political footprint even where client names are withheld [6].
2. Corporate and PR stunts: homebuilder protests, paparazzi and international receptions
Crowds on Demand markets a range of nonpolitical services—hired fans, paparazzi, brand ambassadors and staged demonstrations—and its own case descriptions and service pages cite concrete campaigns: for example, the firm recounts deploying protesters to every sales office of a homebuilder where, according to the company text, “during the term of our protest, they were unable to sell a single home,” and it claims work staging paparazzi and orchestrating a positive reception for a foreign government at the UN General Assembly [7] [5]. The company’s promotional materials emphasize wins in corporate advocacy—securing carriage agreements and influencing regulatory outcomes—showing clients range from private developers to international actors [2] [7].
3. How participants were compensated: what is documented and what is reported
Direct, verifiable payroll records for specific Crowds on Demand events are scarce in public reporting; company marketing and job listings note that compensation “varies based on the role and event type,” and recruitment pages and job boards describe paid shifts without publishing standard rates [3] [8]. Independent reporting and industry analysis compiled in available sources cite media interviews with crowd-rental executives and place per-person payments in the low hundreds—commonly $100–$300 for simple roles—with higher pay for longer hours, difficult conditions, or urgent calls, but those figures are presented as reported estimates rather than firm-published rates tied to named campaigns [4]. The company’s founder has publicly discussed the business model and ethical questions in interviews, confirming participants may be financially compensated for activism or attendance while stopping short of disclosing line-item invoices in most cases [9].
4. What the record proves and where reporting is limited
The documentary record in the provided sources proves that Crowds on Demand has run political, corporate and international campaigns and that it hires participants for those events, often positioning them as supporters, protesters, or paparazzi [5] [7] [6]. What the sources do not reliably provide are granular, campaign-by-campaign payment ledgers: except for corporate self-descriptions and third‑party estimates, there are no broadly published audited receipts showing exactly how much each named campaign paid each participant [2] [4]. Media narratives sometimes conflate allegations (e.g., the Anthony Weiner reporting) with confirmed invoiced clients, so differentiation between documented client engagements and repeated claims remains essential [1].
5. Stakes, agendas and how to read the evidence
Crowds on Demand operates at the intersection of publicity, advocacy and controversy; its marketing emphasizes results while many journalistic and watchdog sources raise concerns about astroturfing and authenticity—an implicit agenda battle between a commercial firm selling influence and critics who view paid crowds as deceptive [6] [5]. Readers should treat the company’s case studies and press mentions as evidence of activity and provenance, but rely on independent records or investigative journalism to substantiate exact payment amounts for particular campaigns, because available sources document participation and role types far more consistently than precise compensation per event [2] [4].