Emergencies create pressure, and pressure leads to rushed decisions. When it comes to executive protection (EP) and security services, we see this all too often.
Take the recent case of the devastating fires in Southern California, where looting became a serious issue, and owners of multimillion-dollar estates were forced to rapidly hire security to protect their property. With law enforcement resources stretched thin, desperate homeowners turned to private security firms, and a majority made the rush decision to hire a security provider based on availability rather than capability.
Similarly, consider the tragic case of Brian Thompson, CEO of UnitedHealthcare. As soon as news of his murder broke, security firms across the country were flooded with urgent calls from executives, board members, and corporate security teams scrambling to reassess their protection.
In moments of crisis, the immediate instinct is to act quickly—but in security, hasty decisions can become costly.
Whether its EP or RST, the scenario is almost always the same: A high-profile executive receives a credible threat, an incident shakes a company’s confidence, or a public figure finds themselves exposed in a crisis. Suddenly, the first security provider that picks up the phone gets the contract. This often leads to providers capitalizing on fear, driving up hourly rates as companies compete for protection services. With demand skyrocketing, many details end up being staffed by unskilled or undertrained agents—creating a false sense of security rather than real protection.
At the same time, the internet becomes flooded with a flurry of targeted marketing campaigns designed to exploit the fear surrounding the situation. Flashy social media ads from tech savvy “bodyguard influencers” claiming to be experts in the field and licensed in every state—begin circulating, while big-box security providers push out graphic heavy white papers claiming to have all the facts within 24 hours. Both aggressively market a full menu of services, whether a client truly needs them or not, turning a crisis into a sales opportunity rather than a moment for thoughtful risk assessment and tailored solutions.
Then, after a few weeks—or as soon as the first inflated invoice arrives—clients begin to question the necessity of the service. With no immediate incidents occurring, they perceive the threat as diminished over time. This often leads to premature cancellations or cutbacks, leaving executives vulnerable once again and repeating the cycle of reactive decision-making.
But in the world of executive protection, convenience does not equal quality. Choosing a provider based on availability, flashy marketing, or the lowest price rather than expertise and proven capability can lead to ineffective protection, broken trust, and long-term risk exposure.
At Cooke & Associates, we urge clients to move beyond reactive hiring and proactively build a scalable program before an emergency arises. This approach allows for careful selection of the right provider with the right personnel and ensures strategic planning takes place under the best conditions—not under pressure. Because in executive protection, you don’t just get what you pay for—you get what you prepare for.
The Common Pitfalls of Rushed EP Hiring
1. Choosing the Loudest (Not the Best) Provider
When security becomes an urgent priority, organizations often default to hiring the provider that appears most visible—whether through aggressive marketing, social media presence, or high-profile endorsements. However, visibility is not a measure of competence. The firms that dominate online discussions or push rapid response teams may lack the experience, strategic depth, or personnel necessary for tailored executive protection.
Take a recent case where a corporate executive, rattled by a security incident, hastily hired a self-proclaimed “security expert” who had recently flooded the internet with flashy advertisements and daily Instagram Live videos that rivaled televangelists and 70’s car sales ads. Without vetting the individual or asking critical questions—such as how services would be delivered, where staff would be sourced, or even requesting proof of licensing and insurance—the client signed on. Within hours, the influencer turned to Facebook groups, WhatsApp chats, and Instagram stories, desperately seeking any available agents, with no regard for licensing, training, or experience.
The result? A patchwork security detail thrown together on short notice, leaving the executive with a false sense of security rather than actual protection. The agents who showed up were random security guards, selected solely based on availability rather than cultural fit, skill, or experience in executive protection. They arrived uninformed, without a proper briefing, and had zero understanding of the client’s risk profile, operational environment, or even the basic protocols expected in high-level security work. Instead of seamlessly integrating into the executive’s routine, they stood out—creating unnecessary friction, confusion, and, ultimately, risk exposure. With no clear direction, no chain of command, and no coordination, the so-called “protection detail” became little more than a group of bodies in suits, providing nothing more than the illusion of safety.
A security provider’s credibility should be measured by its track record, specialized expertise, and ability to integrate seamlessly into an executive’s environment—not by its ability to flood social media and networking sites with promotional content. The most effective EP firms focus on intelligence, discretion, and proactive risk mitigation, not flashy advertising. Organizations should prioritize proven performance over marketing hype to ensure they are selecting a provider that truly understands their security needs.
2. Mistaking Common Practices for Best Practices
Many decision-makers assume that because an approach is common, it must be the best. This is a dangerous assumption. Just because a provider follows the industry’s status quo does not mean they offer the highest level of protection.
For example, some firms rely on a generic “one-size-fits-all” approach—deploying personnel with basic training and outdated tactics, regardless of the client’s specific risk profile. They default to visible deterrence, posting uniformed agents at entry points, assuming that presence alone is sufficient. While this approach may be industry standard, it often lacks depth in risk mitigation, intelligence gathering, and proactive security measures.
The best security plans are not dictated by industry norms but are meticulously tailored to the individual, the business, and the operational environment. They incorporate a layered approach that blends protective intelligence, surveillance detection, and adaptive strategies to prevent incidents before they happen. Simply put, common practice is not synonymous with best practice—true security comes from a provider who prioritizes strategic, customized solutions over convenience and convention.
3. Selecting Based on Price Rather Than Value
Security is an investment, not a commodity. Yet, many organizations make the critical mistake of treating it as a transactional expense—choosing the lowest bid without considering the hidden costs.
Hiring based on price alone often results in a team of undertrained personnel who lack the skills, experience, and discretion required for high-level protection. These cut-rate providers frequently sacrifice strategic planning, proactive risk mitigation, and operational adaptability, leaving clients vulnerable to emerging threats. A budget-friendly option might provide a visible presence, but true security requires far more than placing a body in a suit.
Consider a scenario where an executive hires the cheapest option available, only to later discover that the protection detail consists of personnel with no executive protection training, no intelligence support, and no ability to assess or respond to dynamic threats. The executive may feel secure in the moment, but when a real crisis occurs, they quickly realize that their security team is unprepared, reactive rather than proactive, and ultimately ineffective.
Quality executive protection is about intelligence-driven security, operational readiness, and the ability to adapt to fluid threat landscapes. Choosing a provider based on expertise rather than cost ensures that security is not just a service—but a reliable safeguard against risks that could have catastrophic consequences.
4. Breaking Trust Through a Bad Experience
One of the biggest hidden risks in rushing to hire a security provider is the erosion of trust. When a protection team is incompetent, unprofessional, or ineffective, it doesn’t just compromise safety—it undermines confidence at the highest levels of an organization.
Executives rely on security providers not just for protection but for peace of mind. A single bad experience—whether due to a poorly trained agent, a preventable lapse in security, or an embarrassing public incident—can permanently damage that trust. Once an executive loses confidence in their security team, every future recommendation becomes met with skepticism, leading to hesitation, reluctance, or even outright avoidance of necessary protective measures.
Consider a scenario where a high-profile executive experiences a breach due to a security detail that was hastily assembled. Even if no harm occurs, the psychological impact lingers. The executive may begin second-guessing all security decisions, resisting necessary precautions, or even opting to forgo protection altogether leaving them far more vulnerable in the long run.
Trust in security is fragile, and once broken, it is difficult—if not impossible—to rebuild. The real cost of a bad experience isn’t just financial; it’s the lingering doubt and reluctance to invest in quality security in the future. In executive protection, reliability is everything, and the consequences of getting it wrong extend far beyond the immediate moment.
A Repeatable Process for Choosing the Right EP Partner
Rather than reacting to crises, organizations should have a structured process for evaluating and selecting security partners. Here’s how:
1. Define Your Security Needs in Advance
Not all security firms specialize in the same areas. Some are strong in residential security, others in corporate environments, and others in high-risk travel. Define what you need before an emergency arises. Conduct periodic threat assessments and create a pre-approved vendor list so you’re not making decisions under duress.
Equally important is determining who truly needs protection and to what extent. Protection levels can vary, and it’s not always just the CEO or founder who is at risk. In some cases, a CFO, General Counsel, or HR Director may also require security due to their role in financial decision-making, high-stakes terminations, or legal disputes. Additionally, rank-and-file employees may need protection depending on the countries they’re traveling to, the geopolitical climate, and the risks associated with the project they’re working on. Employees involved in sensitive operations—such as legal negotiations, labor disputes, or high-risk supply chain logistics—may become targets, necessitating a structured approach to travel security and risk mitigation.
By proactively evaluating exposure across leadership tiers and beyond, organizations can implement a scalable security plan that adapts as threats evolve.
2. Prioritize Expertise and Specialization
Not all security providers are created equal. Look for firms with a proven track record in your specific industry and risk profile. A provider that excels in executive travel security may not be suited for corporate investigations, just as a company specializing in event security may lack the discretion required for high-net-worth individuals.
Vet providers thoroughly. Do you ask for copies of licenses in the locations they will be working in? Do you request agent bios and copies of certifications to verify their training and experience? Have you seen an insurance certificate listing your company as an insured party? What about documentation confirming a recent background check on the agents being assigned to you? These are fundamental questions that separate professional security firms from opportunistic providers who simply say “yes” to every job.
Additionally, a reputable provider should have clear training standards, specialized personnel selection criteria, and verifiable case studies from previous engagements. The right security partner won’t just show up with a team—they’ll demonstrate a structured, risk-informed approach that aligns with your organization’s specific needs.
3. Demand a Risk-Informed Approach
The best executive protection providers don’t just place agents at the door. They develop security strategies based on intelligence, risk assessment, and mitigation plans. Before signing a contract, ask: How does this provider assess and manage risk? What proactive steps do they take beyond the basics?
4. Evaluate Communication and Cultural Fit
Executive protection isn’t just about physical security—it’s about integrating seamlessly into a principal’s life. Agents must be adaptable, discreet, and aligned with the executive’s professional and personal culture. While technical skills and credentials are essential, they mean little if the agent disrupts the environment they are meant to protect.
Failing to assess cultural fit is one of the top three mistakes security providers make when onboarding a new client. Not spending time to understand the culture, expectations, or atmosphere the agents will be working in sets them up for failure from day one—and does a disservice to the client. An executive accustomed to a low-profile lifestyle won’t respond well to an overbearing, hyper-visible security presence, just as a principal with high-profile engagements may require agents who can navigate media-heavy environments with confidence and discretion.
Security teams must also communicate effectively with corporate stakeholders, personal staff, and family members. A protection agent who lacks the interpersonal skills to read a room, adapt to social dynamics, or respect professional boundaries will quickly become a liability.
Looking beyond credentials and assessing how well the provider understands your world is critical. A security partner that prioritizes seamless integration ensures not only protection—but trust, confidence, and long-term success in the role.
5. Focus on Long-Term Partnerships, Not One-Off Contracts
Security is most effective when built over time. Establishing a long-term relationship with a trusted EP partner ensures that your security team is already familiar with your risks, routines, and expectations before a crisis ever arises.
Too often, organizations treat security as a short-term, transactional service—hiring protection only when a threat emerges, then cutting services once the immediate concern fades. This reactive approach forces security teams to start from scratch each time, leading to inefficiencies, misalignment, and unnecessary vulnerabilities. Real protection is built on continuity, not convenience.
A long-term partnership allows security providers to develop deep situational awareness—understanding an executive’s travel patterns, daily operations, and personal preferences. It fosters trust and cohesion between the protectee and the team, leading to a smoother, more effective security posture. When a crisis does occur, a well-integrated team is already in place, capable of responding with precision, not scrambling to catch up.
Investing in a dedicated security provider isn’t just about risk mitigation—it’s about strategic foresight, operational efficiency, and ensuring that protection remains proactive, not reactive. Organizations that recognize this build security programs that are measured, adaptive, and built for the long game—not just a quick fix when fear strikes.
In moments of crisis, hiring security should never be a knee-jerk reaction. At Cooke & Associates, we emphasize a strategic, proactive approach to executive protection. We encourage our clients to implement a structured decision-making process that prioritizes expertise, risk assessment, and long-term reliability over convenience and cost-cutting.
Because in this industry, the right decision is not always the easiest or the cheapest—but it is always the safest.
