Fountain of Hygiene
Share This Post

FOUNTAIN OF HYGIENE

Fountain of Hygiene: Bridging Art and Hygiene Amidst COVID

In light of COVID-19, Bompas & Parr, together with the Design Museum, organised the competition Fountain of Hygiene to raise funds for the British Red Cross.

The competition invited creatives, designers and makers to explore the aesthetic, functional and social possibilities of enhanced hygiene this crisis have brought upon us.

When we were asked to partner with Bompas & Parr to help raise awareness of the Fountain of Hygiene competition, it was a given for us.

To maximise the number of competition entries, our strategy included using contextual targeting to run display banners on websites where we knew designers and creatives would spend their time, and in the end, our awareness campaign helped secure an impressive 182 entries.

contextual targeting

Terry Hearnshaw’s unit dose dispensing system won the London & Partners Sustainable Design category

Once the contestants had submitted their works, they were evaluated by a panel of eminent judges including:

Jules Chappell OBE
Managing Director of the Mayor Of London’s Promotional And Economic Development Agency, London & Partners

Marcus Fairs
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Dezeen

Tim Marlow OBE
Chief Executive and Director, Design Museum

Harry Parr
Architect and Founder of Bompas & Parr

Deb Pellen
Global Director, Innovation at Bacardi

Serena Rees
British Businesswoman and Founder of les boys les girls

Prof Charles Spence
Experimental Psychologist and Head of the University of Oxford’s Crossmodal Research Laboratory

Bee Wilson
Food Journalist, Author and Historian

The winners were shortlisted by the jury based on four criteria including innovation, functionality, social impact and aesthetics.

With so many beautiful, whacky, innovative designs, it’s no exaggeration to say that the competition was fierce.

Check out the winning entries here.

Sally Reynolds’ stunning soap dispenser won the Luxury Design category

Sally Reynolds’ stunning soap dispenser won the Luxury Design category

Read some of our customer success stories where we’ve also used display banners.

Market & Structure Tool

Advant Technology — LinkedIn Ads for Enterprise Technology

Which markets change your campaign, and how

A working companion to the multi-market playbook. Explore what actually differs between the UK, US, DACH and APAC — or answer four questions to see whether your account list needs one campaign structure or several.

United Kingdom

UK
Message-based formats
Available

Outside the EU/EEA/Switzerland exclusion since Brexit, so Conversation Ads (successor to Message Ads) are not caught by the EU restriction that applies to Germany.

Governing regime

UK GDPR. Standard UK GDPR employee-data handling applies; no equivalent to Germany's works-council co-determination layer.

Decision culture

Closer to US pace. Single decision-maker with committee sign-off is common; buying-group validation is typically faster than DACH.

Localization

English-native. No localisation tax on creative or landing pages for UK-only targeting.

United States

US
Message-based formats
Available

Conversation Ads run without the EU/EEA/Switzerland restriction.

Governing regime

CCPA / CPRA. California's B2B and employee-data exemptions expired 1 Jan 2023 (AB 25 / AB 1355 / AB 1281 not renewed). Business-contact data in ABM lists touching California residents is now in scope.

Decision culture

Fast-moving, champion-led. Often an internal champion drives the process with executive sign-off, rather than slower group consensus.

Localization

English-native. Tone and proof points differ from UK (ROI framing, case-study style) but no language barrier.

Germany-led DACH

DACH
Message-based formats
Unavailable in EU/EEA/CH

Following a Nov 2021 CJEU ruling that native inbox advertising needs direct-marketing consent under the ePrivacy framework, LinkedIn stopped EU-targeted Message/Conversation Ads (new campaigns blocked 15 Dec 2021, existing ones suspended 10 Jan 2022).

Governing regime

GDPR + BDSG. Germany's Federal Data Protection Act adds works-council (Betriebsrat) co-determination rights over some employee-data processing. A works agreement cannot itself legitimate otherwise-inadmissible processing (German court ruling reported Jan 2025).

Decision culture

Consensus-driven. Formal sign-off and longer internal validation typically precede commercial conversations — plan reporting windows accordingly.

Localization

German materially outperforms English. True below enterprise-only accounts; enterprise buying groups are more English-tolerant, but mid-market is not.

Singapore-led APAC

APAC
Message-based formats
Confirm in Campaign Manager

Singapore sits outside the EU/EEA/Switzerland exclusion, so formats are presumed available — but coverage isn't centrally documented by geography, so verify before planning.

Governing regime

PDPA (Singapore). A distinct consent-and-purpose-limitation regime, not equivalent to GDPR. Treat as its own compliance track, not a GDPR analogue.

Decision culture

Not representative of wider APAC. Singapore is English-language and Western-business-norm-adjacent; this does not extend to Japan, Korea or Greater China buying culture.

Localization

English viable — for Singapore only. Do not treat English-only creative as a proxy for the rest of APAC if the account list extends beyond Singapore/Hong Kong hubs.

Decision-culture notes are directional, not universal — treat as a planning prior, not a rule for every account.

Is the target account list evaluated by one centralised, cross-border buying committee, or by in-market/regional committees?

Does the plan rely on message-based formats (Conversation Ads) in any EU/EEA/Switzerland market?

Does language localisation materially change conversion quality in at least one target market (e.g. DACH below enterprise, or APAC beyond Singapore/Hong Kong)?

Is your target-account list in every market comfortably above LinkedIn's practical minimum audience size (commonly cited around 300)?

Recommendation

Answer the questions above

Select one answer for each question to see the recommendation.

Recommendation

A unified structure fits your answers

Your account list is centrally decided, doesn't depend on a restricted message format, and localisation isn't a material factor — the exception case for a single, unified campaign structure.

  • None of the market-splitting triggers apply — re-check this if your account list or market mix changes.

Recommendation

Split by market: separate campaign groups, budgets and thresholds

At least one structural factor makes a shared template unreliable across your markets.

  • Regional buying committees mean each market is a separate decision unit — a shared campaign group would blend distinct audiences.
  • A message-format plan cannot run as one structure if it includes an EU/EEA/Switzerland market — Conversation Ads aren't available there, so at minimum that market needs a different format mix.
  • Where localisation changes conversion quality, a shared budget and qualification threshold will misread the localised market's real performance.
  • At least one market may sit below the practical minimum audience size — consider folding that market into a regional structure rather than giving it a standalone campaign group.
  • Check each market's target-account list against LinkedIn's minimum audience guidance before finalising how many standalone campaign groups to build.

READY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE?

Ready for advertising that really works? Take advantage of our FREE programmatic or paid social review.