A new app, Protector, is making headlines with its promise of on-demand security services, allowing users in Los Angeles and New York City to hire bodyguards much like ordering a ride through a rideshare app.
Unlike traditional security firms, Protector offers access to active-duty or recently retired law enforcement officers, some of whom are permitted to carry firearms.
The app has attracted significant online attention, thanks in part to a viral marketing campaign, but questions remain about its long-term viability and target audience.
A Viral Marketing Strategy
Videos promoting Protector have gained millions of views on TikTok, showcasing luxury SUVs, suited bodyguards, and high-end experiences.
In one clip, a woman receives an iced matcha latte from her security detail. Another video features a young woman being escorted to the airport by armed guards. These posts were not organic but part of a coordinated promotional effort designed to generate buzz around the app’s launch.
This marketing strategy aligns with the approach of Nikita Bier, a serial entrepreneur known for using viral and sometimes controversial tactics to boost engagement.
Bier, who has advised various app-based startups, has previously suggested that controversy can drive user interest.
He notably helped an AI-powered health app gain attention by rebranding it as Death Clock, a move that led to a surge in downloads and even a mention on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.
While this strategy can create short-term visibility, it does not always guarantee sustained user engagement.
Protector launched on February 17 and saw 97,000 downloads in its first week, briefly reaching No. 3 on the App Store’s Travel charts.
By February 27, it had dropped to No. 70. The app operates on a subscription model, requiring a $129 annual fee and charging at least $1,000 for a five-hour security detail—raising questions about whether the initial wave of interest will translate into a stable customer base.
Who Is Protector For?
The app’s ideal customer remains unclear. While high-net-worth individuals and public figures may require personal security, they often rely on established security teams rather than on-demand services.
Meanwhile, the broader public may find the service cost-prohibitive. Recent marketing materials have referenced high-profile incidents, including the assassination of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, to highlight the potential need for private security.
One promotional video suggests that an armed Protector guard could have prevented the attack, presenting hypothetical scenarios in which security intervention could alter outcomes.
This approach mirrors marketing strategies used by similar services. BlackWolf, a security-focused rideshare app operating in multiple U.S. states, has positioned itself as an alternative to traditional transportation options, leveraging concerns about safety to attract users.
Protector appears to be adopting a similar angle, emphasizing personal security as a service that can be accessed as easily as ordering a ride.
Financial Backing and Future Expansion
Protector has secured investment from figures including Balaji Srinivasan, a former general partner at Andreessen Horowitz (a16z) known for advocating decentralized tech solutions.
Srinivasan has previously promoted alternative governance models and privatized security concepts, aligning with Protector’s vision of offering technology-driven security solutions.
The company is already planning to expand its offerings. A second app, Patrol, is in development, aiming to provide a community-driven security model.
The concept would allow users to crowdfund private security for their neighborhoods, unlocking additional services such as robotic surveillance and drone monitoring based on contribution levels. A promotional video for Patrol highlights its personnel as “real cops, not mall cops.”
Concerns About Privatized Security
The rise of security apps like Protector raises broader discussions about the role of private companies in public safety. Other platforms have faced scrutiny over their approaches to crime prevention and enforcement.
For example, Citizen, a crime-reporting app, encountered significant backlash when its CEO participated in a live-streamed manhunt for a suspected arsonist, offering a cash reward for their capture—only for authorities to later identify the wrong person.
The incident underscored the risks of integrating law enforcement-like functions into engagement-driven platforms.
As Protector continues to develop, it remains to be seen whether its model will prove sustainable or if it will follow the pattern of other viral startups that struggled to maintain long-term success.
While some see it as an innovative approach to personal security, others question the implications of integrating gig-based models into law enforcement-adjacent services.
Whether demand for app-based private security grows—or fades—will depend on whether users find real-world value beyond the initial online hype.
