Are Crowds on Demand protesters required to undergo training or orientation?
Executive summary
There is no clear public evidence that Crowds on Demand imposes a formal, standardized training program or mandatory orientation for every person it hires to attend protests; public reporting and the company’s own materials point instead to briefings, “marching orders,” and a low bar of requirements such as following directions and having a good attitude [1] [2]. Secondary reporting and watchdog summaries indicate the firm has shifted from using actors to recruiting people already sympathetic to an issue and requires contractors to sign nondisclosure agreements, but those accounts stop short of documenting a company-wide training curriculum [3] [4].
1. What the company says: marketing language and suggested preparation
Crowds on Demand markets itself as a provider of “impactful advocacy campaigns” and staffed events — from rallies to PR stunts — outlining services on its website but not publishing a formal training manual or mandatory orientation checklist for protesters [2] [5]. The firm’s blog encourages people to “become a professional protestor” and describes steps for involvement, language that suggests coaching or guidance is available to participants rather than necessarily proving legally required training for every gig [6]. The company’s public materials and promotional pages emphasize capability and logistics but do not present evidence of compulsory, uniform training programs open to external verification [2] [5].
2. What journalists have observed: briefings and simple hiring criteria
Local reporting that examined paid protesters found on-the-ground descriptions such as protesters receiving “marching orders” and that the only stated requirements were “a good attitude and the ability to follow directions,” implying short briefings or instructions rather than formalized training courses [1]. News features describing payment rates and recruitment practices highlight that Crowds on Demand often hires people through sympathetic groups or performers, which suggests organizers may rely on recruiter knowledge and preexisting activism experience in lieu of a standardized orientation regimen [1] [3].
3. Independent profiles and watchdogs: contracts, NDAs, and shifting practices
Investigative and watchdog write-ups note an evolution in Crowds on Demand’s model from primarily employing actors to recruiting people who already align with targeted causes, and they report that “all employees and contractors are required to sign nondisclosure agreements,” which documents contractual control but not a public training requirement [3]. Profiles and encyclopedic summaries characterize the firm’s services and controversies—astroturf concerns and client secrecy—without producing evidence of a mandatory training course for protesters, leaving public accountability on this point thin [4] [3].
4. Context and counterpoints: what training might look like and limits of reporting
Broader event- and crowd-management literature shows that major gatherings and protests are often accompanied by briefings, incident-action plans, and safety orientations when organizers or public agencies prioritize crowd safety — standards discussed in police and public-safety manuals — but those references are general industry context, not proof Crowds on Demand enforces similar protocols company-wide [7] [8]. Some credible sources suggest Crowds on Demand gives specific directions at events (“marching orders”), but given the absence of a published, uniform curriculum or a whistleblower account documenting mandatory training, claims that every hired protester must complete a formal orientation cannot be substantiated from the available reporting [1] [6] [3].
5. Bottom line and reporting limitations
The best-supported conclusion from available sources is that Crowds on Demand provides briefings and directs participants on roles and messaging, and it hires people with relevant experience or disposition when useful, but there is no documented, publicly available requirement that every protester undergo formal training or a standardized orientation program [1] [6] [3]. Reporting and company materials establish contractual controls like NDAs and logistical coordination but do not demonstrate a mandatory, uniform training regimen; absent internal company documents or whistleblower testimony, that specific assertion remains unproven in the record [3] [2].