Doug’s funeral

Organising funerals when money is short

In this commentary, Ruth Bickerton notes some of the peculiarities of funerals as consumer purchases.  As she reflects on Doug’s case, she considers some concerns about responsibility and control over funeral provision that can be particularly acute when family members struggle to pay funeral costs.

Some quirks of funerals as consumer purchases

Organising a family member’s funeral is, for many people, a rare task.  In the case story, Pete takes on responsibility for organising his uncle Doug’s funeral with no previous experience of what is involved.  Pete’s emotions at the time of this necessary purchase are likely to be mixed and conflicting.  He is grieving, whilst also possibly anxious about how to ‘repay’ his gratitude to Doug, and how to avoid taking on an insurmountable debt.  He will likely be guided by his experience of previous funeral attendances, what he understands to be social norms, and advice from those he asks, including the funeral director(s) he approaches. 

Normally with a large purchase, people ‘shop around’, compare prices and even possibly haggle for the best price, playing off one provider against another.  However, research shows people are unlikely to do this when they find themselves needing to arrange a funeral.1  There are various reasons for this.  Pete, for example, might worry that it would be disrespectful to Doug, who was like a father figure to him, to try to reduce the costs of his funeral.  He might feel awkward about asking for cheaper options and might not be confident to question options put forward by the funeral directors, who of course are more knowledgeable and experienced than Pete.  

There is a legal obligation in the UK for funeral directors to display standardised price lists, but Pete might still struggle to understand what the options mean.  This would also be a challenge if Pete chose to look at an online comparison website.  Funeral directors are usually very willing to give advice, but they are also running businesses, so commercial considerations are in play however sensitive they are to bereaved clients’ situations.   

Responsibility and control for payment and decisions

In the UK, the ‘next-of-kin’ is usually expected to take responsibility for deciding what a funeral will include and for paying for it.  Although some people have specified their funeral preferences and arranged ‘pre-payment’ funeral plans or subscribed to a religious burial society, for example through their mosque or synagogue, in many cases the person who organises the funeral has several decisions to make about what form the funeral will take. 

Pete is the person responsible for payments to the funeral director.  Funeral directors often require a deposit for a funeral up front and then full payment relatively soon after the funeral.  In the absence of a pre-paid funeral plan or funds from Doug’s estate (which is apparently small), Pete seems to be in a difficult position as he does not have the amounts of money required.  Under current rules, Pete would not be eligible for a funeral support payment from the government, because he is employed and not receiving the specific benefits needed to qualify for this payment.  Pete could perhaps have chosen not to ‘claim’ his uncle, in which case the responsibility for post-death arrangements and payments for Doug’s funeral would have fallen to the Local Authority.  However, Pete did not seem to consider this an option, even given the difficulties he was facing in covering the costs of the funeral.  This is not an unusual situation and, indeed, many people go to great lengths to avoid a local authority funeral for a family member or friend.  There are also cases, though, in which people ‘claim’ the body of someone they are related to without realising this can commit them to covering the costs of the funeral.  Pete might thus need to borrow funds and go into debt to pay for this somewhat unexpected funeral.  Reading between the lines of the case story, Doug’s friend Charlie realises this and tries to help.  But Charlie’s efforts involve influencing the details of the funeral as well as covering its costs, and they have some troubling implications. 

As noted, Pete would usually be considered responsible for deciding about, as well as paying for the funeral.  In the case story, Pete wants to do the right thing by his uncle, but Doug does not seem to have passed on any meaningful funeral preferences to Pete, and there is no mention of a will, which might have said something about these.  Doug’s joking comment to Charlie perhaps suggested a preference for a low-fuss funeral, but it is unclear if Doug really meant this, and Charlie doesn’t seem to act as though he did – although of course it is possible that Charlie was acting in part to make himself feel better. 

Pete doesn’t seem to have objected to Charlie’s initial proposals that Doug’s funeral should include the British Legion Standards and a bugler.  These were perhaps consistent with his concern to ensure the funeral was fitting for Doug – even if they would add to the costs of the funeral, which he was already worried about. 

When Charlie initiated the fundraising page, he took the pressure off the payment issue but the way he did it also rather undermined Pete’s responsibility for, and control over, the funeral choices. The page set out proposals, including for a tank converted to be a hearse, that Charlie had not discussed with Pete, and that Pete seems somewhat embarrassed about – perhaps in part because they are more costly than he would have chosen. Given that the fundraising page has been launched and has succeeded in raising funds, Pete seems to have little option left other than to go along with the more involved funeral that Charlie has imagined.  Putting a stop to the increasing accessories would necessitate either the return or reallocation of donated money.  It is not clear whether the fundraising page for Doug’s funeral set out explicitly what is to be done with any excess funds. If it did not, UK Government guidance is that it must go to a charitable purpose.  The British Legion would seem an obvious choice in this situation – but this was not the original purpose of the donations, and we can question who should make this decision.

This case example raises challenging questions about whether and why decision-making rights should belong or pass to those who are paying for funerals, or whether and how that should be decided otherwise.  It also illustrates the challenging questions that can arise about whether and how funerals should serve to fulfil the wishes of the deceased, reflect the deceased’s identity or comfort those left behind, and which of these should take priority if they conflict.

Pete’s situation at the start of the case story highlights the difficulty some people find themselves in when they are unexpectedly required to organise and pay for a funeral, especially when they don’t have the money to cover the costs.  Whilst Charlie’s campaign helped to cover costs, not everyone would view this as an acceptable solution and not all crowdfunding campaigns are successful.  I suggest additional safety nets need to be considered for people who fall outside the current government support system. 

References

This commentary draws on research by the Competition and Markets Authority that can be found at:

• The Competition and Markets Authority: Funerals Market Study 
• Funerals market study: Interim report and consultation

Crowdfunding funerals: helping who, helping how?

Vikki Entwistle outlines some ethical concerns about digital crowdfunding platforms and online campaigns to raise money to cover funeral costs.

When Charlie and his friends at the Royal British Legion set up an online appeal to raise money for Doug’s funeral, they were part of a growing trend.  In recent years, appeals for donations to help pay for funerals have become an established feature on crowdfunding platforms such as GoFundMeTM and JustGivingTM.  Organisations that advise people who are struggling with the financial aspects of funeral provision now often include guidance about crowdfunding along with, for example, information about government grants. 

Online crowdfunding platforms are responding to a significant problem.  Many people in the UK and elsewhere struggle with the costs of funerals.  When the cost of living is high relative to most household incomes, many people cannot afford funeral plans or save money more generally.  But crowdfunding is not an effective solution for everyone who needs to pay for a funeral: many campaigns do not reach their funding targets. Crowdfunding can also cause or contribute to other problems.  I outline here some concerns relating to: privacy, pride and reputation; the (un)fairness of success; and the possibility that the establishment of crowdfunding undermines calls for more robust social justice. 

Privacy, pride and reputation

In some respects, online crowdfunding is like a local community ‘whip round’ for cash.  The online version may have the advantage that it can reach more potential donors, including those who are geographically remote.  However, a local community whip round can usually be done with very little explanation because those invited to contribute already know the person who died and those who are organising the funeral. The people who organise a local whip round can also use some discretion about who is and is not approached.  In contrast, an online campaign must say something about the person who died and about why money is sought for their funeral.  It is also difficult to control who sees an online campaign.  These differences have important implications.

To be effective, an online campaign must inform people in a way that moves them to donate money.  Crowdfunding platforms offer various tips about presenting stories, images and requests in ways that are more likely to appeal to potential donors.  For funerals, the story about the person who died will in some respects be like a eulogy, because speaking well of the person helps present them as an emotionally appealing and deserving character.  But a fundraising campaign must also present the person and/or their family as in need because they lack resources.  This, together with any stated or implied explanation, may be seen and felt as shameful, even if neither the person nor their family did anything to be ashamed of.  It can be tricky enough to find appropriate words for a funeral eulogy and choose images for a memorial photo tribute, not least because the various people involved may have quite different opinions about what is appropriate.  Another layer of complication and sensitivity is added to these challenges when the task is to design a story and select a photo for fundraising purposes. 

The information shared on a crowdfunding platform is typically also shared on social media.  This information may elicit negative as well as positive judgement of both the deceased person and people associated with them.  Appeal funds may thus come at some cost to the reputation of the person who died and to the privacy, pride and reputation of their family, some of whom may not have agreed with the details of what was said, or even the decision to use a crowdfunding platform.  The awful reality that some people initiate hateful comment and action along political, racist, religious or other lines means that for some, a crowdfunding appeal may lead to abusive communication and more broadly threaten their safety.

The characters in the story of Doug’s funeral do not seem to have been badly affected by the crowdfunding campaign.  Doug did not have any obviously stigmatising characteristics and there is no indication of any abusive communication arising in this case. However,  Pete was not entirely comfortable with what Doug’s friend Charlie had done in setting up the campaign without consulting him, and he was embarrassed, perhaps in part because the campaign raised more money than had been asked for and because of the  potential extravagance of the funeral the donations might support. 

The (un)fairness of success

The financial success of the crowdfunding campaign for Doug’s funeral was probably to some extent due to Doug having died a popular man with broad social networks from his taxi-driving and engagement with the Royal British Legion.  The photograph of Doug participating in the Remembrance Day parade as a former service man likely invoked a sense of gratitude among a substantial number of potential donors. It might also have influenced some to give money with a sense of patriotism. 

Not all crowdfunding appeals are so successful, however, and research shows that patterns of success in various ways reflect and reinforce existing social inequalities.  Some personal characteristics and causes of death attract more sympathy, and from wealthier potential donors than others.  Attempts to raise funeral costs for people who were elderly, disabled, or died by suicide, for example, are generally less likely to reach their targets.  

Campaign organisers with high levels of rhetorical skill and social media awareness and connections are at a distinct advantage.  When people browse crowdfunding platforms, they are usually shown campaigns that are doing well in terms of attracting donations before they come across any that are doing less well.  This feature can be best exploited by campaign organisers who have several donors primed and ready to give generously online as soon as their appeal is launched. 

Appeals which attract few donations, comments or attention not only leave those who initiated them struggling with funeral costs, they may also lead to feelings of (further) rejection – and perhaps indignation at the unfairness of social arrangements.

Undermining the pursuit of social justice? 

Charitable giving to appeals to fund particular funerals can clearly help the people involved in those cases. But the donations do little or nothing to address the often deeply-entrenched poverty or social inequalities that contributed to the need for the appeals in the first place. Similar to the case of food banks, while crowdfunding platforms can enable the provision of extremely valuable emergency support for some people in crises, there is a danger that they are used politically in ways that detract from efforts to ensure that funerals are affordable and available to all as a matter of justice and not of charity.  

Further reading

Reports of research into crowdfunding include:

Nora Kenworthy, Zhihang Dong, Anne Montgomery, Emily Fuller and Lauren Berliner (2020) A cross-sectional study of social inequities in medical crowdfunding campaigns in the United States. PLOS One 15(3): e0229760

Tamara Kneese (2018) Mourning the commons: circulating affect in crowdfunded funeral campaigns. Social Media and Society