The “Funeral Rule” came into effect in April 1984.  That’s 40 years ago.

Don’t get me wrong. . . . I’m an advocate for consumer protections.  The “Funeral Rule” was supposed to offer those protections back in 1984. But in my opinion, the actual reality of the rule ever since it was implemented, has never seriously helped consumers in search of information on how to compare and purchase funeral and memorialization services.

Without going into too much detail, it has been my opinion that since the implementation, the format of the rule and the requirements for notifying the public of it have been too complicated and burdensome for the consumers it was meant to protect.  From my point of view, the rule seemed to stress the charges involved with what was a “traditional casketed burial with services”.  Since the time of implementation, death care and how and what consumers choose for their death services have changed . . . and changed dramatically.

Again, without going into too much detail, I think it is time for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to look at exactly how consumers of today look at their death care purchase options.  No longer do they simply defer to the traditions and mores of the church they worship at, but they look at all the growing options that are available — which is many more and many different options than those options available in 1984.

I’m in somewhat of a unique position to look at today’s consumers and their interactions and choices of death care options.  I’ve owned and operated a funeral home, I have been a front-line funeral home arranger for 33 years, I study and write on the changes and other business interests of death care professionals, and I’m a retired member of communities and churches who hears a lot of what my fellow retirees are looking for in death care.

For what it is worth, here are what I see as the major decisions of every death care consumer.

1. Choice of Disposition
2. Choice of Celebration
3. Choice of Memorialization

Those choices differ from what was available in 1984.  In 1984 consumers basically chose from earth burial and cremation.  There were some variables of such, but in general if a family told the funeral director that they wanted earth burial, the funeral director knew, dependent on the church traditions, how that funeral would be carried out and the charges that would be incurred by the family, including cemetery items.  The same was true, in most cases, for cremation memorial services.

Forty years later however, the “choice matrix” of consumers has drastically changed and the FTC should understand  that and not implement changes to a rule that does not reflect that growing choice matrix complexity.  Here are some of my thoughts on today’s consumer choices:

Disposition:  Disposition of the dead human body is the only requirement that needs to be purchased because of legal reasons.  Something has to be done and a family has to choose which disposition method to be used for their loved one.  Choices might include earth burial with embalming, earth burial without embalming, cremation, alkaline hydrolysis, natural organic reduction, or body donation (followed by the institution’s final choice of disposition).

It is also quite possible that a going-concern business may operate dealing in only the disposition of the human remains and not offer services such as celebrations and memorialization.  Businesses that feature “disposition” only that come to mind are some online cremation providers and some natural organic reduction providers.

Celebrations/Services/Tributes:  The 2nd death care choice of those I talk to is an optional choice that I term the Celebration/Service/Tribute.  This is something that is not required and even when a consumer family chooses a gathering, there is no guarantee that they will use a traditional funeral home for the logistic planning and/or venue.

Here’s some examples of Celebration/Service/Tribute companies that compete with traditional funeral venues for this business.  It’s my belief that over time more and more families will opt for the services and venues that these companies, and others like them, provide.

As we move forward and the off-funeral home site venues become more practical, I believe that wedding venues, that are traditionally used during the weekends, may be re-branded as “Tribute Venues”.   It’s my opinion that you will see more and more death care memorial-type events held at these venues on weekdays.

Here’s a venue near me that one would think is perfect for this type of business during the week days.  I found it quite by accident, but it offers facilities for services and for hospitality such as meals.  I think the evolutionary future for this type of venue will be as a Tribute/Conference center that will include gathering and meal services for Death Care in its options.

Memorialization: The third leg of the stool that I see in death care consumer choices is what I will term “Memorialization”.  This is the purchase choice of how families decide to “Memorialize” their loved-one for the long term.  Again, this can be an optional choice and it can be a choice that does not have to be decided immediately at the time of death.

Obviously, if the Disposition choice is some type of earth burial then this choice involves a decision regarding a cemetery and monument and at least the cemetery lot decision needs to be done at the time of death.  However, if the family would choose a Disposition method such as cremation, alkaline hydrolysis, or natural organic reduction, this choice can be delayed and it may not involve the funeral home or other company used for the Disposition.

This memorialization process of the family can be as simple as an obituary placed on Legacy.com or it might be with such memorialization processes such as Better Place Forests or in a scattering garden.  It may be solidified remains such as Parting Stone.  There are any number of choices available to families including urns kept at home and scattering of remains.

The fact is that some of these options can be purchased through a funeral home, but many don’t need to be.

Tom Anderson
Funeral Director Daily

The Final Thought:  The death care thought process of the American consumer has changed much since the inception of the FTC Funeral Rule in 1984.  There is nothing inherently wrong with the rule, but I believe that simply re-writing a rule that places so much emphasis on the General Price List and costs such as embalming, costs for use of vehicles, and  use of facilities costs misses the mark when the options that the American consumer now chooses for death care disposition, celebrations, and memorialization has changed so drastically.

It’s my opinion that if the rule is to protect the American consumer and explain the decisions necessary to them about their choices, then a whole-new perspective on global choices possible and available by the American consumer should be part of the discussion.  If they are not we end up with a rule based on 1984 consumer thought processes that does little to protect, or educate, the American consumer on death care purchase options.  . . . . . . The “same old, same old” thought process in formulating this rule is a lazy and ineffective way for the Federal Trade Commission to proceed.

More news from the world of Death Care:

Enter your e-mail below to join the 3,120 others who receive Funeral Director Daily articles daily:

“A servant’s attitude guided by Christ leads to a significant life”

As my first post of the New Year I find it imperative that I look into the world of Death Care, Funeral, and Cremation business with a perspective of change that is happening all around us.  And, when I look at that change, I think in our Death Care world, as well as the rapid changes in our nation and world in general, the implications are passing the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and their review of the “Funeral Rule” by.

The “Funeral Rule” was put into law in April 1984 as a mandate for consumers to be able to compare and look at prices of funeral and cremation services without having to commit to those services by a funeral home for a deceased loved one.  It was seen as a much needed tool for consumers in their selection of a funeral/cremation service provider.  The FTC was the regulatory agency that was selected to handle the implementation and enforcement of the rule.

Tom Anderson
Funeral Director Daily

In my opinion, almost since the very inception of “The Rule” in 1984 it has not done what it was intended to do.  That’s partly because it was complicated in nature and used a Death Care vocabulary of services that the public was not well versed in.  And secondly, almost since its inception, America started turning from a world of funerals to a world of cremations.  I’m not so sure that the FTC saw that coming.

For the record, I’m not against regulation and consumer protection.  But, I’m afraid if the FTC comes up with a final revision of the rule going forward in the near future, they will be in the exact same position  — authors of a rule which is already behind the times.

I say that because consumers purchase things in different ways today. . . .a process that is continually evolving.  And while, at least to me, the FTC has concentrated their review partially on the availability of consumers to see prices on the internet — internet purchasing is only one of the ways that things are changing in the Death Care business.   From what I understand, so much of the FTC’s vision has been focused on website and internet purchasing that they may be missing part of how consumers are buying Death Care services.  (More on that in an upcoming column).

Another reason I suggest a slow-down of any FTC decision is the recent (June 2024) decision by the United States Supreme Court known as the “Chevron” decision.  The ruling “struck-down” an old precedent that gave the FTC much more power in these types of regulations.  That 2024 decision which is defined like this —  “The Chevron doctrine was a 40-year-old Supreme Court precedent that required courts to defer to regulatory agencies when interpreting ambiguous laws” —  probably means that one might question what can the FTC do as to funeral home regulations when there is no clear-cut Congressionally passed law to back their regulations.

Finally, come January 20, 2025, there will be a new Presidential administration in Washington, DC.  If you believe what you read, this administration will be more open to less regulations in business and industry.  Here’s a recent article from Reuters about that titled, “Trump names Andrew Ferguson to head the Federal Trade Commission”.

Again, I’m all for consumer protections. . . . but, with what we now know about the changes in consumer behavior, the Supreme Court “Chevron” ruling, and the change of administration in Washington, DC, I think it would be a mistake for the current FTC to move “full-speed ahead” without acknowledging that if they do, their rule will more than likely be “obsolete” in reality the minute it is printed.

Related Material:

More news from the world of Death Care:

Enter your e-mail below to join the 3,111 others who receive Funeral Director Daily articles daily:

“A servant’s attitude guided by Christ leads to a significant life”