WASHROOM THE NET EFFECT
The internet is changing everything – even our visits to the washroom. Steve Palmer from Tork manufacturer SCA looks at the net effect on today’s toilets.
A visit to a public washroom used to be short and to the point, washroom standards were variable and most only provided the basics of soap, towels and toilet paper.
Many toilets were dirty or poorly equipped. These we would leave as soon as possible and perhaps comment about them to friends. But in general, the experience would be quickly forgotten.
Those were the days when a visit to the loo was a private experience and something we rarely discussed. But the internet has changed all that.
Few experiences today are truly private in a world where we share everything via social media and review all our activities online. Holiday trips, concerts, hotel stays, restaurant meals – all are documented and illustrated on sites such as Facebook, Instagram and Twitter.
And yes, even our visits to the washroom are now talked about on the net. Instead of coming out of a public washroom and forgetting about our experience within seconds, an increasing number of us now upload images of the toilets we visit and this has been made possible with the help of our new constant companion, the smartphone. According to a 2013 survey conducted by Sony and O2 it appears that at least 75% of people in the UK regularly use their phones on the toilet.
A second survey carried out the same year revealed that under-30s are spending an average of one minute and 39 seconds longer in the loo than the over-55s. Using depth sensors and motion-mapping technology, the Ideal Standard bathroom manufacturing company concluded that younger people are spending this extra time on social media. So people may even be uploading their loo review whilst actually on the toilet.
28 | TOMORROW’S FM
Of course, a social media comment about a lavatory would make fairly dull reading if the toilet in question were merely average. But a washroom that is particularly stunning –or spectacularly squalid – soon becomes a talking point.
attracted more than 700 followers by posting images of noteworthy washrooms in London restaurants.
There are also hundreds of internet blogs about the world’s best, worst and weirdest washrooms. While many of these have limited audiences, others, such as the Bookatable Top 10 Best Restaurant Toilets in London blog potentially have more clout.
There is also a website named Toilet Inspector that encourages visitors to upload reviews of washrooms in the UK. The site incorporates a list of the country’s five lowest-rated toilets in a bid to name and shame poor service providers.
“AT LEAST 75% OF PEOPLE IN THE UK REGULARLY USE
THEIR PHONES ON THE TOILET.”
So the net effect means that terrible toilets no longer have any hiding place while smart, impressive washrooms are able to generate publicity that may well draw customers to the venue. This phenomenon can also be seen in the increasing number of toilet award schemes that are being set up online. These highlight those washrooms that are particularly clean, well- equipped, hygienic or noteworthy.
Besides the UK’s own Loo of The Year Awards there are also “Best Restroom” schemes in place in both the US and Canada. Such schemes allow washroom users to nominate outstanding toilets online. Loo of The Year Awards winners receive a certificate of excellence while winners of the US and Canada contests earn a place in a “Hall of Fame”. All these schemes have had the positive effect of highlighting outstanding washrooms while giving all providers an incentive to raise their game.
Instagram is crammed with images of toilets - good and bad - uploaded by people keen to share their experience. One user calling themselves “Trap Adviser” has
Another positive effect of the net can be seen in the washrooms of stadiums. Toilets here were once notoriously poor and many festival-goers were put off by the inadequate toilet provision, the queues and the smells. The web
twitter.com/TomorrowsFM
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70