Loocator / Be Free to Pee

Read the campaign story

Harpic’s Loocator combines a toilet-finding utility with the Be Free to Pee campaign. The brand page describes a crowdsourced app where people can find, add and rate facilities and note amenities. Contemporary May 2024 coverage credits TGTHR and describes film, radio and physical prompts directing people to the app, alongside work with sanitation partners. The named app and its launch communication are treated as one campaign family.

Editorial interpretation: a cleaning brand extends its relevance from a product used in a toilet to the practical problem of finding a usable one. The campaign can attract attention, but the database must earn repeat use. That makes information quality, freshness and clarity part of the brand experience. A compelling invitation creates a stronger obligation to tell users what is known, what is merely reported and what may have changed since the last contribution.

The sources do not establish that every listed toilet is safe, accessible or currently open. A user rating is not an inspection, and a map cannot resolve all infrastructure barriers. This case excludes reported reach and download figures because they do not demonstrate reliable access or improved life outcomes. It studies the documented service and communication, without advising anyone to rely on an unverified location or disclose sensitive travel patterns.

Solve a problem adjacent to the product’s ordinary use

A brand can be relevant before someone reaches the point of purchase or use. Map the surrounding task and ask which uncertainty repeatedly interrupts it. The most credible extension is close enough to the brand’s competence that users understand why it is involved, yet useful independently of a product sale. Avoid treating a broad social issue as a convenient content theme. The team must be willing to maintain the practical resource it introduces. If the service cannot be supported, a modest verified guide may be more responsible than an ambitious app whose usefulness quickly decays.

Treat freshness as a visible feature of the information

Location information has a shelf life. A facility can close, change access rules or lose an important amenity after a positive review. Show when information was checked, distinguish user reports from verified details and provide a clear correction route. Do not combine cleanliness, physical accessibility and personal safety into one unexplained score. Each means something different and may require different evidence. Let users see uncertainty before they commit to a journey. A useful directory does not need to pretend it knows everything; it needs to make its knowledge and limitations easy to understand.

Design contribution without making exposure the price

Crowdsourcing can improve coverage, but contributors should not need to reveal where they routinely travel or identify other people in photographs. Ask for the minimum useful information and moderate reports that contain personal details. Make location permissions optional where a manual search can serve the task. Explain how corrections are handled and avoid rewarding volume over accuracy. A small number of responsibly checked entries may be more valuable than a large database of uncertain records. The campaign should encourage helpful contribution while preserving the ability to use the resource without becoming a public data source.

A bounded test for another brief

Proposed adaptation: a cultural festival could publish a small, manually checked guide to its own visitor facilities, with venue permission and named staff responsible for updates. List opening times, step-free routes and available amenities separately, showing when each was confirmed. Compare the guide with the existing venue map during a supervised usability session. Invite corrections through a private form that does not require a visitor’s location history or public profile. This tests whether clear, current service information reduces uncertainty without attempting to build a citywide database, certify personal safety or reproduce the original app’s scale.

Measure successful information finding, misunderstood amenities, stale entries and correction time. Ask visitors what remains uncertain. Do not equate downloads or map views with successful facility access, and never infer personal safety from a positive usability result.

Stop if listings cannot be maintained, ratings imply an unsupported safety guarantee or contributors are asked to expose private location histories.