My ideal funeral will see me deposited under a tree or in a meadow covered in wildflowers. However, I believe that every bereaved person should be free to choose the kind of funeral they want, even if this includes cremation. Yet, Direct Cremation is proving controversial for reasons other than the damage all forms of incineration cause to the environment. This is because it dispenses with the traditional funeral. Both funeral directors and people who support the old ways say it lacks dignity. In part, this is because it is offered for a fixed low cost. Many funeral directors still consider talking about costs as vulgar. However, this puts the bereaved in a very vulnerable position as they negotiate the traditional funeral arrangement. Each element is talked up, not least the coffin, because everyone is encouraged to do well by the deceased. When embalming, viewing the body, the hearse and limo, is totalled, the entire arrangement is always much dearer than expected.
The Direct Cremation has emerged because the funeral market has failed many of the bereaved. Who says so, none other than the government through the Competition & Markets Authority, the CMA. Their recent report highlights decades of overcharging and restrictive practices in funeral directing. This is no surprise to those who understand the business. That said, the most accused are the big firms, especially those who have bought up family funeral directors and still trade under the old names. I accept that there are many new firms and smaller companies who operate fairly, but identifying them can be difficult.
The reality is that the traditional funeral is very inefficient and thereby expensive. It is arranged at a funeral directors’ premises on the High Street. The window of this dour shop will not display a price list. Inside, the staff sit around waiting for the occasional bereaved person to walk in through the door. A few coffins are stocked and a hearse and limo spend most of their lives in a garage around the back. Staff have to be on call because the bereaved expect the body be collected immediately.
The bereaved person, statistically an aged widow, will be fussed over. Time is given. Arrangements will be made, viewing of the body will occur and, on the day of the funeral, four bearers will carry the coffin. A man, occasionally a woman, will be the nominated funeral director for the event. Sometimes, according to company policy, they will leap out of the hearse a few metres before the crematorium entrance, and ‘walk’ the cortege in. They might be carrying a silver topped cane; everybody will be in black.
You don’t need to be a genius to appreciate that all this does not come cheap; it is a model of inefficiency. Also, there are too many funeral directors chasing too few funerals. Oddly enough, the CMA report showed that where companies do more funerals, they also charge more. That is because competition simply does not work in the funeral sector.
As a consequence, the traditional funeral has become increasingly expensive. The bill cannot be put on Klarna and without good credit, the bereaved may have to find a large deposit. This has created what we now call funeral poverty. However, if a less expensive funeral is desired then the traditional funeral has to be abandoned. It requires far too many work hours. The internet solves this dilemma by promoting Direct Cremation.
This slick process entirely changes how a funeral is managed. The body is no longer the centre of attention around which everything revolves. It is simply picked up, cremated without ceremony and the ashes returned to the family. The ceremony, outside the typical conveyor belt restrictions, can then takes place over the ashes, a ceremony just as meaningful as that which would have taken place with the traditional funeral.
This new process is demeaned when it is called, by some funeral directors, a no frills service. The reality is that we remain unclear as to why Direct Cremation is appealing. Is it the low cost or is it because the traditional funeral frills are seen as pointless? At least that guilt trip, called choosing a coffin, is avoided. Perhaps people oppose the invasive and toxic embalming process. Some might want to dispense with all that formality, the bearers, hearse and limo, the cortege. We simply don’t know and must wait until a deeper understanding emerges.
What might appeal is that the bereaved family are not embarrassed; they don’t have to disclose their financial situation or plead poverty. With a fixed price, there is no negotiation. In other words, the bereaved is in control rather than the funeral director. Perhaps the deceased, on their deathbed, demanded that they avoid funeral debt. Holding a ceremony at a later stage over the ashes is not fundamentally wrong, just a new way of doing funerals.
These new Direct Cremation operators, often labelled disruptors, have identified internet opportunities created by a failing funeral market. Their offering is promoted on price alone, which is a big risk. As to this risk, even the CMA Report cast doubt on whether the Direct Cremation would increase in the future. These disruptors have streamlined how the body is handled and stored. Those traditional funeral director claims about local service, quality and dignity were always subjective issues, mainly used to justify high prices. The bereaved are entitled to ignore them, even to see the body as an item of waste. The spiritual aspect of the funeral is not changed one iota.
My comments are not an endorsement of what these disruptors are offering. Indeed, it begs the question as to whether any crisis purchase, like a funeral, should be allowed through the internet, which is altogether another question. Transparency is essential, no matter who does the funeral. Also, I would like to see a Direct Burial option, not least for natural burial. Whatever, the bereaved must rule and those who desire a Direct Cremation must be supported, not vilified.
Article by Ken West
Book available here: Stonehenge Pensioner
