Memorialization Practices Are Changing: An Industry Perspective on Improving Service Outcomes for the Bereaved

Abstract

Although considerable research efforts have focused on bereavement outcomes following loss, there are few studies which address the role of memorialization, particularly as it relates to formal service provision. Currently the funeral, cemetery, and crematorium industries are observing a steady decline in traditional and formal memorialization practices. This study aims to identify current memorialization practices and emerging trends, highlight key priorities for improving service outcomes for the bereaved, and understand the implications of changing consumer preferences for service provision. The study’s qualitative research design incorporates two phases, a scoping literature review followed by in-depth interviews with eight service providers from the funeral, cemetery, and crematorium industries. A key finding is that the trend toward contemporary and informal memorialization practices blurs the lines between the role of consumers and service providers. There is a clear opportunity for service providers to engage in community education as a means of building supportive relationships with and improving service outcomes for the bereaved.

Keywords

bereavement burial funerals grief mourning coping/adaptation attitudes death

Introduction

Over the last 30 years, empirical studies of the experiences of loss, grief, and bereavement have proliferated (Woodthorpe, 2011). Despite this, there has been relatively little research about the influence of memorials and memorialization on these experiences (Holloway, Bailey, & Hukelova, 2017). Bereavement is largely shaped by sociocultural factors (Anderson, 2010; Corless et al., 2014), with several cross-cultural studies indicating that responses to death are not universal (Eisenbruch, 1984a, 1984b; Klass, 1999, 2000). Similarly, societies form beliefs, values, and practices surrounding memorialization that are subject to change over time (Anderson, 2010; Appel & Papaikonomou, 2013). There is mounting evidence to suggest the rise of new and diverse memorialization practices, expressing shifting sociocultural responses to the experience of bereavement and provoking further enquiry among industry practitioners and researchers (Schafer, 2016).

In a society with increasingly diverse belief systems, the bereaved search for meaningful ways to grieve, contributing to the contemporary notion of consumer choice now present within the death care industry (Anderson, 2010; Vale-Taylor, 2009). While the funeral, cemeteries, and crematoria industries bundle services to include ceremony, body disposal, and memorialization, consumption of these services is often circumstantial, rather than driven by genuine consumer choice (van der Laan & Moerman, 2017). Exemplified by rising cremation rates and memorialization practices taking place in public spaces, consumer preferences are changing (IBIS World, 2018; van der Laan & Moerman, 2017). Several trends contribute to these changes, including the declining role of formal religion, lack of burial space in metropolitan areas, increased cost of burials, concern for the environmental impact of burials, and the costs of body transportation in a globalized world (IBIS World, 2018).

Objectives

Formal service providers from the funeral, cemetery, and crematorium industries have collectively observed a marked shift away from traditional forms of memorialization.

The Australasian Cemeteries and Crematoria Association, concerned about the wider societal implication of these trends, commissioned this study, with three objectives:

Establish current memorialization practices and emerging trends

Highlight key priorities to improve service outcomes for the bereaved

Understand the implications of changing consumer preferences on service provision

Methodology

This qualitative research design incorporated two phases, a scoping literature review, followed by in-depth interviews with eight key service providers from the funeral, cemetery, and crematorium industries across Australia.

Phase 1: Scoping Literature Review

A scoping literature review is particularly useful where an area of research is complex and has not previously been reviewed comprehensively, as is the case with memorialization (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Mays, Roberts, & Popay, 2001; Wilson, Lavis, & Guta, 2012).

Scoping reviews enable easy identification of gaps within extant literature and highlight opportunities for original contribution to knowledge (Armstrong, Hall, Doyle, & Waters, 2011; Landa et al., 2011; Peterson, Pearce, Ferguson, & Langford, 2017). A scoping review provides a narrative integration of evidence (Peterson et al., 2017), useful to practitioners, policy-makers, and researchers, eliminating duplication of effort and guiding future research (Armstrong et al., 2011). A scoping review also offers the opportunity to integrate practitioner perspectives through consultation with key stakeholders, particularly relevant given the industry-specific nature of this study (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Levac, Colquhoun, & Brien, 2010).

Search strategy

In undertaking the scoping review, a thorough search of academic literature, industry reports, and main stream media was conducted, focusing on studies linking grief and bereavement with memorialization practices. Databases utilized in the search for published academic literature included: CINAHL Plus, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, PsychINFO, Science Direct, Scopus, Web of Science, Sociological Abstracts, Anthropology Online, Anthropology Plus.

Search terms

The list of search terms included: grief, bereavement, loss, funerals, cemeteries, crematoria, anticipatory grief, prolonged grief, memorialisation, memorials, ceremonies, memorial plaques, headstones, mourning. Because of the scarcity of studies linking grief and bereavement with memorialisation practices, hand searches were conducted using various combinations of search terms. For example, “memorialisation” and “grief” or “memorialisation” and “bereavement” or “memorial” and “cemetery.”

Inclusion criteria

The search was limited to studies published in English, from the year 2000 onwards, to ensure timely and relevant evidence. Four searches were conducted, two focusing on academic research, yielding 51 relevant articles, and two on industry and main stream media resources, yielding 43 relevant articles. These 94 references were analyzed thematically, paying particular attention to memorialization trends. The search process, while rigorous, was also iterative, allowing for the inclusion of unexpected sources of relevant information that may have otherwise been omitted (Wilson et al., 2012). Seminal articles were traced using the reference lists from more recently published works to ensure threads pertaining to memorialization remained intact. As a result, articles published prior to 2000 were included where pertinent. The fifth and final search identified 116 additional sources, a total of 210 references for inclusion.

Phase 2: Industry Interviews

Sampling strategy

Invitations to participate in this research were extended exclusively by e-mail to industry members of the Australasian Cemeteries and Crematoria Association, constituting a purposive sampling strategy. Eight industry members expressed their interest and their details were passed on to the research team, who contacted members via phone and e-mail to provide further information about the study and consent forms.

Data collection and analysis

Eight semistructured in-depth telephone interviews were conducted between August 27 and September 3, 2018, with interviews ranging in length between 35 and 80 minutes, with an average duration of 60 minutes. Interviews were audio-recorded with the written and verbal consent of the participants for the purpose of transcription. The interview protocol was based on the research objectives and preliminary findings from Phase 1. The interview recordings were transcribed, coded, and analyzed thematically by the research team. The resultant themes were then compared and contrasted with those that previously emerged in the scoping literature review.

Participant profile

An overview of participant characteristics is provided in Table 1. The interview participants were from metropolitan and regional areas in four states within Australia: New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia, and Victoria. The majority of participants (six out of eight) represent the perspectives of the cemeteries and crematoria industries, while the remainder (two out of eight) represent those of the funeral industry. The commercial context in which interview participants operate should be noted, with the minority (two out of eight) from a privately owned business and the remaining majority (six out of eight) operating under the jurisdiction of local government and trusts.

Table 1.

Interview Participant Profile (n = 8).

	n	%
State
New South Wales	1	12.5
Queensland	2	25
Western Australia	2	25
Victoria	3	37.5
Location
Metropolitan	3	37.5
Regional	5	62.5
Industry
Funeral	2	25
Cemetery/crematorium	6	75
Years’ experience
(0–10)	1	12.5
(11–20)	7	87.5
Commercial context
Privately owned	2	25
Local government	6	75

Findings

Phase 1: Scoping Literature Review

This scoping literature review established specific memorialization practices linked to digital memorialization, special relationships, and the nature of loss in existing research. In the following outline, recommendations from prior research are summarized outlining priorities for the industry to improve service delivery and outcomes for the bereaved.

Digital memorialization

Due to technological advancement and the widespread use of social media platforms, the idea that bereaved individuals have digital needs has become apparent (Roberts, 2012) with the sharing of memorialized photos of the deceased increasingly common (Gibbs, Meese, Arnold, Nansen, & Carter, 2015; Nansen, Kohn, Arnold, Van Ryn, & Gibbs, 2017). Moreover, the death of a loved one is also a common trigger for an increased interest in online family history research as a means of creating a legacy (Neilson & Muise, 2016). With many families separated by geographical distance, online memorials offer an accessible alternative to a fixed, physical memorial as an outlet for emotional expression (Mitchell, Stephenson, Cadell, & Macdonald, 2012; Veale, 2004; Walter, Hourizi, Moncur, & Pitsillides, 2012). Even where traditional physical memorials such as gravesites are accessible, 76% of bereaved people reported more frequent visits to the online memorial space (Roberts, 2004).

The dynamic nature of online memorials is the main source of appeal and key point of difference (Hess, 2007; Roberts, 2004). Additional benefits include unrestricted accessibility, without interruption from or imposition upon others, providing mourners with a sense of anonymity, privacy, dignity, and neutrality (Hallam & Hockey, 2001; Mitchell et al., 2012; Williams & Merten, 2009). Online memorials strengthen existing relationships and aid in the creation of new communities, with over 90% of users reporting their participation had been beneficial in their bereavement (Roberts, 2004). Memorial websites provide a socially acceptable way to create links with others who have experienced a similar loss, marking continuing bonds and ongoing communication with the deceased (Roberts, 2004; Walter et al., 2012; Williams & Merten, 2009). An ongoing “dialogue” with the deceased is common, documenting one side of a conversation as if the other, deceased, person was listening (Kasket, 2009; Walter et al., 2012).

Special relationships

While bereaved parents do engage with traditional forms of memorialization, personalized practices are of greater significance and include activities such as build-a-bear, scrap books, commemorative jewelry, car stickers, Christmas ornaments, balloon releases, tattoos, volunteering, and random acts of kindness undertaken in memory of the deceased child (Cacciatore & Flint, 2012). Those who have lost a child may also rely on the internet to express their grief, capitalizing on its usefulness in connecting isolated individuals with shared experience (Mitchell et al., 2012). For some, a formal burial within a cemetery evokes a sense of anxiety, with bereaved parents perceiving their child as being “out there” all alone, resulting in the compulsion to visit every day (Schwab, 1990).

Given the lack of public acknowledgement of the grief in losing a close animal companion, bereaved pet owners often create their own private memorialization practices (Zinner, 2016). There are varying forms seen around the world, demonstrating a widely accepted sociocultural construction of animal companions as family (Zinner, 2016).

Although legislation in Australia prohibits the combined burial of humans and animals in cemeteries, many pet owners opt to cremate their deceased animal companion with the intention eventually to be buried with these cremains (Chur-Hansen, 2011).

Nature of loss

Those bereaved by a death that is sudden or violent in nature may seek more meaningful ways to preserve the memory of the deceased beyond the bounds of a cemetery (Clark & Franzmann, 2006). There is a tendency toward fashioning spontaneous public memorials at the scene of a violent crime or accident, often aided by promotion from mass-media and social media communications (Gibson, 2011). The main motivations for private memorial building in public places are grief, the power of presence, and importance of place (Clark & Franzmann, 2006). Current research focuses on memorialization surrounding motor vehicle accidents, suicide, and homicide.

Memorials at the roadside are increasingly common as a metaphysical attachment to the place of death, rather than the final resting place of the deceased (Breen & O’Connor, 2009; Gibson, 2011). This practice challenges the notion of space as public or private or secular or sacred and facilitates an open-ended grieving process for the bereaved (Clark & Franzmann, 2006). Similarly, the notion of public secular space as private sacred space also applies to those bereaved by suicide, with survivors often retracing the final steps of the deceased as a private pilgrimage (Simone, 2010). For survivors of suicide, online memorialization sites such as Facebook are an important supplement to the physical grave (Chapple & Ziebland, 2011; Krysinska & Andriessen, 2015), offering a new way to come to terms with loss and resulting in a positive impact on survivors’ mental health (Bell, Bailey, & Kennedy, 2015). For those bereaved by homicide, loss is magnified and grief adjustment more challenging (Bottomley, Burke, & Neimeyer, 2017). Memorialization practices that focus on the life of the deceased prior to the violent ending may facilitate healing and adjustment to grief (Anderson, 2010).

Service improvement

Bereaved consumers are largely led and constrained by the products and services on offer (Nansen et al., 2017). Thus, it is necessary for funeral providers to balance the needs of the bereaved with their commercial interests (Nansen et al., 2017). Despite active professional associations, and legislation in place to protect consumers, research calls for increased transparency within the funeral industry to improve consumer awareness and minimize predatory pricing practices (van der Laan & Moerman, 2017). Although consumers can, in most cases, organize all aspects of a funeral without a funeral provider, there is little awareness in the community at large of alternative courses of action (van der Laan & Moerman, 2017). This may be, in part, due to the institutionalization of death, with 86% of Australians dying in an aged-care facility or hospital (Grattan Institute, 2014), where the bereaved are advised to contact a funeral director shortly after the death (van der Laan & Moerman, 2017). Similarly, within aged-care facilities across Australia and the United Kingdom, service provider policies state that funeral and disposal decisions must be disclosed prior to admission (Froggatt, Vaughan, Bernard, & Wild, 2009; Lyon, 2007).

Phase 2: Industry Interviews

Following the Phase 1 scoping literature review, in-depth interviews with industry showed that factors affecting current memorialization practices include a shared definition, identifying the role of service providers and the importance of place. The service providers interviewed offered their perspectives on key priorities for improving service delivery and bereavement outcomes. Challenges include a lack of industry integration and family dynamics, while opportunities are identified within developing trends and increasing community integration.

Shared definition

In establishing a shared definition of “what memorialization is,” service provider sentiments ranged from the notion of “remembering” to the concept of “continuation.” Memorialization practices are essentially understood as a means of making tangible the intangible.

It’s a continuation of that person … when someone dies you’ve lost the ability to care for that person like you did, you could physically touch them, it’s the transference of that care from someone to something. (P1)

Role of service providers

Service providers predominantly view their role in memorialization as one of facilitation, focusing on their functional benefit to society by lawfully disposing of human remains and maintaining historical records.

It’s important as an identifier for the future generations, future historians … to identify that this person was in fact alive at some stage and meant something to someone, or just contributed to the world. (P1)

As facilitators of memorialization, service providers acknowledge that their level of involvement varies between consumers, alluding to a general lack of experience with death and dying.

I get people that ring me and say Dad’s just died, what do I do? Some people just don’t know, some people aren’t aware of the process. But I think people are a bit more tuned in nowadays, especially the younger generation with the internet they can just quickly type in what do I do if someone dies … you Google it, it’s got all the answers. (P7)

This inexperience extends to the commercial context of the funeral, cemeteries, and crematoria industries, with consumers unaware of the options available to them.

The family can perform an informal service of their own which seems to becoming more popular … I think that a lot of families are still unaware … they seem to think they need to go through a funeral director for the arrangements. (P4)

And a lot of them are uneducated to know that they can split ashes. They can put half in their favorite place and half within the cemetery with a memorial, which is going to hopefully help them through the bereavement process. (P4)

Service providers highlighted that service delivery is always much easier when consumers understand what the deceased would have wanted, through explicit instruction or wishes.

All they want to do is what their loved one wanted, so we see them a little bit more relaxed … they’re not having to make a decision in their grief state. They’ve had somebody make that decision for them, and it’s like this sense of relief. (P8)

The importance of meeting bereaved consumers’ specific needs is paramount to all service providers, regardless of whether their clients are considered preneed or at-need.

If there’s 200 options, you don’t say to the family here’s 200 ways you can be memorialized, you’ll often try to match the family to the type of memorialization that you think is right for them. (P6)

Importance of place

Service providers perceive their role in maintaining a place or purpose-built space for the bereaved to gather as an important component of facilitating the memorialization process.

There’s still a need for a sense of place, somewhere to go, to congregate, to meet, to talk … for a lot of people that’s sufficient, to just be in a place. (P5)

You often see families coming all together here on birthdays and special days for them, they all spend time and have food and just be together. (P5)

There is a tendency for service providers to refer to the grounds of the cemetery as an open and shared public space that is utilized by their local community on an everyday basis.

We get people who run, ride, walk their dogs, every morning, every night through our park, they use it as open space. I think that more and more we’ll see councils and urban planning identifying cemeteries as open space environments. (P8)

Lack of industry integration

Service providers maintain their greatest challenges are multifaceted, arising from a combination of legislation, industry structure, and increasing competition. For cemeteries and crematoria in particular, there is a lack of opportunity to build client relationships.

It’s really hard to talk to them about memorialization options because we haven’t built a relationship, their relationship is with the funeral director. (P8)

If the funeral directors stated to families ‘go and visit the cemetery, they’ll look after the next stage for you’, that would be a huge benefit and memorialization would benefit families in the continuation of their grief journey. It would also just show that there’s more people in their community that can help. (P1)

Contributing to the distinction between “us and them” is the detrimental impact of service failure in the funeral industry on consumers’ experiences with cemeteries and crematoria.

If a family has had a good experience through the funeral process, they seem to manage a little bit better when they come to us … the ones that have had a bad funeral experience, come with a very negative attitude about what’s next. (P5)

Funeral companies now are big corporations … so, it’s difficult to get involved in the community without them thinking that you’re trying to get some sort of financial benefit out of it. (P4)

Family dynamics

Service providers described family dynamics on a continuum between dysfunctional and exuding a sense of belonging, with bereavement outcomes reflecting this variation.

For families that go through the bereavement and grief and then the memorialization, it can be just so wonderful and perfect and so beneficial, but sometimes there is a flipside to that. (P2)

Although service providers strive for seamless service delivery and positive bereavement outcomes, dysfunctional family dynamics limit options.

Perhaps one person might not think that the other is a suitable person of authority, or somebody is kept away, kept out of being allowed to be part of the memorialization or the funeral arrangements, and that’s very difficult and hurtful for everybody concerned. (P2)

Bereavement outcomes are most favorable where families negotiate the memorialization process together. Conversely, it may highlight conflicting agendas resulting in family feud.

We had a person who prepaid their burial, prepaid their location, and after they died the brother came in and changed it, and had him cremated and took the refund … he was the executor, so the deceased have no right. (P8)

Developing trends

Service providers observe the impact of increasing globalization leading to memorialization practices separated from disposal, both physically and temporally.

We have a lot of people who have family members that pass away overseas, so they want to memorialize here … it wasn’t actually her mum’s remains, but sand and rocks from her burial site in Dubai. (P5)

Consumer enquiries about “Do-It-Yourself” (DIY) alternatives are steadily increasing with many consumers interested in circumventing the involvement of funeral directors and cemeteries.

And when you go through all those different steps that they do need to do, I find most of them realize it’s not something that they’re prepared to do themselves, and that’s when they’ll employ the use of a funeral director to do those things for them. They don’t see themselves as being able to pick dad or mum up, dress mum, put mum in a coffin, take her home to the house, those sorts of things I think are very confronting for the families. It’s something that, I know there is a movement towards it and I believe that it will gain momentum. (P4)

In cases where families do decide to “do-it-themselves” with minimal assistance from formal service providers, their motivation can include effective adjustment to grief on the basis of their personal involvement and increased participation.

I’ve had people come back again and again and say how great that was. It’s a lot of pressure for the main one involved because there’s a lot of work to do, but they definitely benefit out of it. I think they feel like it’s been a more appropriate funeral for the person that’s died, they feel that they’ve done exactly what they wanted. I’m sure the long-term benefits will be better, they feel they’re more involved. (P7)

Service providers also observe a change in the utilization of public spaces for funerals services, based on consumers’ personal preferences and emerging trends.

We’re seeing more funerals at golf clubs, yacht clubs, family’s homes … you’ve got to come up with new options … we’ve negotiated with some reception centers in the past … some say “no our staff don’t want to have a coffin on site, sorry.” (P6)

Driven by digital memorialization and popularization of genealogy, more families are searching for relatives’ memorials, presenting a potential opportunity for the industry.

Ancestry.com means that genealogy has become a big deal. So, people are tracking all that information, and part of what you can record is where they’re buried and where they’re memorialized. (P6)

Community integration

The opportunity to educate communities as a means of increasing awareness around death, grief, and bereavement evoked polarizing views among service providers. While some were willing to assume responsibility for educating communities, others saw themselves as ill-equipped.

I think more education would benefit everybody … .if people don’t know what their options are, then they don’t know what they should do … it’s up to us to educate our communities on how different options might suit their situation. (P3)

It’s so far out of our jurisdiction as how our function is defined currently … when we’re talking to families and we really get a sense that the families are struggling so much, and there’s a sense of urgency that they really are in need of help, we do have on hand booklets and contacts. (P2)

This divergence in perspective seems to be influenced by the gradual shift over time from operating models based on community service to models focused on commercial outcomes.

We are moving to a business model rather than a community service model … and what does that mean if you want to be in the business of cemeteries? How does that translate into dollars and staff and land? (P5)

Where service providers are already well integrated in their communities, the focus on fiscal outcomes is clearly secondary to meeting the genuine needs of the bereaved.

I’d hate to become too business minded … as long as we cover costs, and make a little bit of money out of it to cover future costs of maintaining gardens, that’s our aim rather than achieving targets. I think it depends on the staff … if you have people who might be revenue driven but still community minded … if they can get a balance in there it can work out okay … but if you’re just all about the dollar I think it would detract from how people cope. (P7)

The level of community integration achieved by formal service providers across the industry was inconsistent, with strong ties and local partnerships a key metric signaling success.

We’ve got a university here that has a body donation program … the family haven’t had a funeral, they haven’t had their loved one returned to them at all and they really need somewhere to memorialize. (P5)

Discussion

A scoping review of the literature and in-depth interviews with industry have helped identify memorialization practices and highlight priorities for improving services.

Current Memorialization Practices

It is clear that the innate human need to memorialize remains unchanged, but the way in which the bereaved choose to memorialize the deceased is undergoing rapid transformation. This aligns with the view that memorialization is subject to change over time as a material response to handling death and dying within a sociocultural context (Janson, 2015). It is apparent that consumers are opting for a personalized amalgamation of traditional and contemporary social practices surrounding memorialization to fulfill their individual needs (Walter, 1994).

Practitioners understand memorialization practices as a means of making tangible the intangible and recognize their main role as facilitators of memorialization for the bereaved. Consumer perspectives within mainstream media similarly suggest the bereaved wish to be guided in such a way.

Somewhere in the public health system there needs to be a facilitator, like prenatal classes, to inform us of all that is possible. And to do it at the other end of life and be guided by what [the family and the deceased] want to do. (Power, 2017)

While cemeteries have traditionally offered a place for the bereaved to locate their memories, there are several contemporary memorialization practices enacted in shared public spaces outside of the cemetery (van der Laan & Moerman, 2017). The shift toward digital memorialization integrates the deceased into the everyday lives of the bereaved, as an alternative means of communication on a daily basis (Vale-Taylor, 2009). Integrating the authentic memory of the deceased into the everyday environment of the bereaved may also be achieved through the scattering of ashes outside of the cemetery (Hockey, Kellaher, & Prendergast, 2007; Schafer, 2016). This may take place in a space at home, a natural setting such as the park or beach, or a place the bereaved once shared with the deceased, such as a favorite holiday location.

Key Priorities for Improvement

Increased community involvement and a demand for consumer choice have inadvertently led to tension between cemeteries, crematoria, and funeral providers. Competing for consumers’ time and money was referred to, both implicitly and explicitly, by industry practitioners as a major challenge. A lack of industry integration coupled with a shift from community service models to commercial models of operation has further exacerbated the issue.

The relational dynamic of families was perceived by industry practitioners as a barrier to effectively engaging the bereaved in memorialization. Family dynamics shape families’ perceived value of funerals (Schafer, 2016) and memorials. The splitting of ashes may be an effective option for those in disagreement.

Consumers are moving away from formal service provision and expressing an interest in “DIY” alternatives. This trend is attributed to cost, the wishes of the deceased, and the notion that professional means impersonal. Despite this, families are often deterred by the complexity of this undertaking and “hand things over” to a funeral director. For the industry to convert these “insurmountable” tasks into easy-to-follow instructions may be of great benefit to service providers and the wider community. Bereaved people clearly appreciate the instrumental, informational, and emotional supports provided by funeral providers (Aoun, Lowe, Christian, & Rumbold, 2018).

While service providers felt it was their role to educate communities about their products and services, the topics of grief and bereavement were not embraced with the same level of certainty. Service providers should be encouraged to recognize their experiences with death, grief, and bereavement as intangible assets that are highly valuable and reimagine ways in which they may be able to share their pragmatic wisdom with the wider community.

Fostering a sense of community may rely upon the service providers’ abilities to engage the local community, in a timely and consistent manner, to build trust in their ability as “professionals” to offer guidance. We note in this regard that funeral providers were rated among the most helpful sources for bereavement support after families and friends (Aoun, Breen, White, Rumbold, & Kellehear, 2018).

The changing utilization of private and public spaces is a flow-on effect of evolving consumer preferences for integrating the deceased into everyday life. The need to host memorial services within a religious context is diminishing and being replaced by spaces imbued with personal meaning for the deceased and the bereaved.

Implications for Service Provision

Consumer preferences within the death care industry are constantly evolving (Beard & Burger, 2017; Kopp & Kemp, 2007). Consumer behavior involves searching for, purchasing, using, and evaluating products or services (Schiffman, O’Cass, Paladino, D’Alessandro, & Bednall, 2011). The main tenets of consumer behavior, namely, needs, motivations, decision-making, and relationship marketing, are present as invisible yet powerful undercurrents throughout these research findings. Thus, to effectively improve service outcomes for the bereaved through memorialization, service providers must understand the needs, motivations, and variables that influence decision-making. Moreover, relationship marketing strategies offer a means of creating partnerships, promoting education, and improving facilitation across the funeral, cemetery, and crematorium industries. Suggested marketing activities are tactical exemplars for service providers in promoting open communication, increasing long-term consumer engagement, and achieving community integration.

Need-based memorialization

Needs are recognized when a consumer is faced with a problem (Schiffman et al., 2011). Grief studies indicate that bereaved consumers may engage the same memorialization ritual or practice to fulfill divergent needs or, conversely, seek fulfillment of the same need through different memorialization practices (Vale-Taylor, 2009). In accessing memorialization products or services, the consumer role can only be filled by the deceased as “self” or the bereaved as “other.” Four need-based memorialization contexts can be identified (a) Gift-Giving, (b) Coping Strategy, (c) Relieving Burden, and (d) Fulfillling Responsibility (Figure 1). These contexts consider consumers’ practical and emotional needs and, while not mutually exclusive, may offer service providers a basis for target market segmentation.

Figure 1.

Need-based memorialization contexts.

Motivation for memorialization

Profiling the main consumer roles of “self” and “other,” two underlying motivations are established, further underpinned by two driving objectives (Table 2). Understanding these consumer profiles may encourage service providers to evaluate their offerings to ensure their range is sufficient in meeting consumers’ objectives. For example, the deceased (a father) may prepurchase an entire family allotment as a form of gift-giving (in order to be seen by others as a great provider), while the bereaved (his son) may only choose to install a memorial plaque after his father’s burial, to fulfill what he perceives as a responsibility.

Table 2.

Consumers’ Motivations and Objectives for Memorialization.

	Consumer Role: Self	Consumer Role: Other
Motivations	How they see themselvesHow they want to be seen by others	How they see the deceasedHow they want to portray the deceased
Objectives	What they want others to rememberHow they want others to remember	What they think the deceased wantsHow they wish to remember the deceased

Variables influencing decision-making

Five primary variables and 16 secondary variables have been identified as influencing decision-making about memorialization across the funeral, cemeteries, and crematoria industries: (1) Access (location, place of death, death literacy, digital literacy), (2) Tradition, ritual, ceremony (cultural heritage, belief system), (3) Grief response (cause of death, relationship to deceased), (4) Body disposal (legislation, environmental values, religious values), and (5) Consumer Preference (gender, age, family dynamics, socioeconomic status, relationship with service provider) (Table 3). Adopting a commercial perspective, the only variable over which the service provider has any influence is their preexisting relationship with the bereaved consumer as “self” or “other.” From an organizational perspective, service providers may benefit from developing meaningful relationships within their communities.

Table 3.

Variables Influencing Consumer Decision-Making in Memorialization.

	Key considerations
1. Access
a. Geographical location	Availability of service providers within proximity
b. Place of death	Influence of institutional policies or partnerships
c. Death literacy	Awareness and proficiency of service provision processes
d. Digital literacy	Proficiency to access information and service providers
2. Tradition, ritual, ceremony
a. Cultural heritage	Cultural predisposition toward importance
b. Belief system	Religious predisposition toward importance
3. Grief response
a. Cause of death	Nature of the circumstances surrounding the death
b. Relationship to deceased	Nature of the interpersonal relationship with the deceased
4. Body disposal
a. Legislation	Limited alternatives, complicated administrative tasks
b. Environmental values	Sustainability issues with current practices
c. Religious values	Religiosity associated with specific disposal methods
5. Consumer preferences
a. Gender	Behavioral differences in patterns of consumption
b. Age	Increasing importance of consumer choice by generation
c. Family dynamics	Family structure and purchasing roles
d. Socioeconomic Status	Affordability of memorialization alternatives within reason
e. Relationship with provider	Preexisting relationships influence decision-making

Relationship marketing strategies

Successful implementation of relationship marketing activities (Table 4) offers service providers increased consumer engagement and long-term loyalty (Hunt, Arnett, & Madhavaram, 2006). The objective is to increase service provider contributions to their wider communities through implementing tactics that focus on key relationship building.

Table 4.

Suggested Relationship Marketing Activities.

Strategy	Objective	Activity
Partnerships	Community Integration	University body donation programsLocal library historical repositoriesPrimary and secondary schoolsAged care and palliative care services
Education	Disseminate Information	Special interest community groupsHold book clubs or trivia nightsCommunity forums or focus groupsShort courses or free info nights
Facilitation	Offer Goods and Services	Local small business exposObligation free consultationsOffer gardens for alternate useTours of cemetery or crematorium

Conclusion

A key finding of this study is the trend toward contemporary and informal memorialization practices that blurs the roles of the community and formal industry service providers, integrating the deceased into the everyday lives of the bereaved. This is evident through the use of digital memorialization and online genealogy research, the memorialization of pets, private memorials in public spaces, rising interest in DIY alternatives, and increasing globalization of memorialization practices across countries. There is a need to review the industry structure as cooperation is lacking among funeral, cemeteries, and crematoria service providers, with the bereaved unknowingly foregoing potentially helpful services as a result. In addition, dysfunctional family dynamics are among the most challenging operational constraints upon improving service outcomes for bereaved clients. Moreover, there is a clear opportunity for service providers to engage in community education as a means of building ongoing relationships with individuals and families. This could ultimately lead to a mutually beneficial and unprecedented level of community integration, sustaining commercial viability for the service provider and providing consistent support for the bereaved. Within this changing commercial and social landscape, service providers have the opportunity to better understand the needs and motivations of the bereaved and utilize these insights as a foundation for building long-lasting relationships through memorials. While in this study, the views of bereaved consumers are represented through the reports of industry service providers, future research should examine consumer perspectives of memorialization practices. For academic and industry researchers, the underexplored avenue of contemporary memorialization practices presents a fruitful opportunity to advance theory and practice across multiple disciplines.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge valuable input from service providers who volunteered their time and expertise to participate in the interviews.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The authors acknowledge the financial support of the Australasian Cemeteries and Crematoria Association.

Author Biographies

Jennifer Lowe is a PhD candidate in the Public Health Palliative Care Unit at La Trobe University, Melbourne. She holds a Bachelor of Commerce (Honours) majoring in marketing and interactive marketing. With a corporate marketing background, Jennifer's research focuses on consumer engagement and well-being within palliative care service contexts. Jennifer is the recipient of a La Trobe University Postgraduate Research Scholarship and she works as a research assistant and workshop facilitator in the Department of Public Health. Jennifer is also a trained palliative care volunteer with a specialist community based palliative care service in Melbourne. Her research has been published in the Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services and Death Studies.

Bruce Rumbold is an associate professor in the Department of Public Health and director of the Public Health Palliative Care Unit at La Trobe University, Melbourne. The Unit works collaboratively with health services, community groups and other academic programs in a number of community capacity building projects on end of life care. Bruce&s multidisciplinary interests are supported by postgraduate qualifications in physics, practical theology and health social science. Prior to joining La Trobe University, he was from 1986-2002 foundation professor of pastoral studies at what is now the University of Divinity, Melbourne. Social determinants of end of life experience, forming and sustaining compassionate communities, and spiritual care, are the particular foci of his current work.

Samar M. Aoun is a professor of Palliative Care, La Trobe University and the Perron Institute for Neurological and Translational Science. She is a palliative care researcher with a public health approach and a focus on under-served population groups such as people with Motor Neurone Disease, dementia, terminally ill people who live alone and family caregivers before and after bereavement. Samar advocates for a person-centred health and social care. Her research programs on supporting family caregivers at end of life and the public health approach to bereavement care have informed policy and practice at the national and international levels. Her more recent work on social models in bereavement support has provided empirical evidence to strengthen the Compassionate Communities movement in bereavement support.

References

Anderson

(2010). Common grief, complex grieving. Pastoral Psychology, 59(2), 127–136.

Aoun

Breen

White

Rumbold

Kellehear

(2018). What sources of bereavement support are perceived helpful by bereaved people and why? Empirical evidence for the Compassionate Communities approach. Palliative Medicine, 32, 1378–1388.

Aoun

Lowe

Christian

Rumbold

(2018). Is there a role for the funeral service provider in bereavement support within the context of compassionate communities? Death Studies, 1–10. doi:10.1080/07481187.2018.1506835

Appel

Papaikonomou

(2013). Narratives on death and bereavement from three South African cultures: An exploratory study. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 23(3), 453–458.

Arksey

O’Malley

(2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32.

Armstrong

Hall

B. J.

Doyle

Waters

(2011). Cochrane update. ‘Scoping the scope’ of a Cochrane review. Journal of Public Health, 33(1), 147–150.

Beard

V. R.

Burger

W. C.

(2017). Change and innovation in the funeral industry. OMEGA – Journal of Death and Dying, 75(1), 47–68.

Bell

Bailey

Kennedy

(2015). We do it to keep him alive’: Bereaved individuals’ experiences of online suicide memorials and continuing bonds. Mortality, 20(4), 375–389.

Bottomley

J. S.

Burke

L. A.

Neimeyer

R. A.

(2017). Domains of social support that predict bereavement distress following homicide loss. OMEGA – Journal of Death and Dying, 75(1), 3–25.

10.

Breen

O’Connor

(2009). Acts of resistance: Breaking the silence of grief following traffic crash fatalities. Death Studies, 34(1), 30–53.

11.

Cacciatore

Flint

(2012). Mediating grief: Postmortem ritualization after child death. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 17(2), 158–172.

12.

Chapple

Ziebland

(2011). How the Internet is changing the experience of bereavement by suicide: A qualitative study in the UK. Health (London, England: 1997), 15(2), 173.

13.

Chur-Hansen

(2011). Cremation services upon the death of a companion animal: Views of service providers and service users. Society & Animals, 19(3), 248–260.

14.

Clark

Franzmann

(2006). Authority from grief, presence and place in the making of roadside memorials. Death Studies, 30(6), 579–599.

15.

Corless

I. B.

Limbo

Bousso

R. S.

Wrenn

R. L.

Head

Lickiss

Wass

(2014). Languages of Grief: A model for understanding the expressions of the bereaved. Health Psychology and Behavioral Medicine: An Open Access Journal, 2(1), 132–143.

16.

Eisenbruch

(1984a). Cross-cultural aspects of bereavement. I: A conceptual framework for comparative analysis. An International Journal of Comparative Cross-Cultural Research, 8(3), 283–309.

17.

Eisenbruch

(1984b). Cross-Cultural aspects of bereavement. II: Ethnic and cultural variations in the development of bereavement practices. An International Journal of Comparative Cross-Cultural Research, 8(4), 315–347.

18.

Froggatt

Vaughan

Bernard

Wild

(2009). Advance care planning in care homes for older people: An English perspective. Palliative Medicine, 23(4), 332–338.

19.

Gibbs

Meese

Arnold

Nansen

Carter

(2015). #Funeral and Instagram: Death, social media, and platform vernacular. Information, Communication & Society, 18(3), 255–268.

20.

Gibson

(2011). Death and grief in the landscape: Private memorials in public space. Cultural Studies Review, 17(1), 146–161.

21.

Grattan Institute. (2014). Dying well. Retrieved from https://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/815-dying-well.pdf

22.

Hallam

Hockey

(2001). Death, memory and material culture. Oxford, England: Berg.

23.

Hess

(2007). In digital remembrance: Vernacular memory and the rhetorical construction of web memorials. Media, Culture & Society, 29(5), 812–830.

24.

Hockey

Kellaher

Prendergast

(2007). Of grief and well-being: Competing conceptions of restorative ritualization. Anthropology & Medicine, 14(1), 1–14.

25.

Holloway

Bailey

Hukelova

(2017). Displaying self: Memorialisation in contemporary society. Retrieved from https://remembermeproject.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/displaying-self-highlights-and-summary-for-website-061117.pdf

26.

Hunt

S. D.

Arnett

D. B.

Madhavaram

(2006). The explanatory foundations of relationship marketing theory. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 21(2), 72–87.

27.

IBIS World. (2018). IBISWorld industry report S9520, funeral directors, crematoria and cemeteries in Australia. Retrieved from https://clients1-ibisworld-com.ez.library.latrobe.edu.au/reports/au/industry/default.aspx?entid=675

28.

Janson

(2015). By the sad and mournful sea: Mortuary memorialisation in the quarantine context (Bachelor of Arts [Honours]). University of Sydney, Australia Retrieved from https://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitstream/2123/14707/1/Janson,%20S_thesis_2015.pdf

29.

Kasket

(2009, September). The Face(Book) of death: Posthumous identity and interaction on a social networking site. Paper presented at the 9th International Conference on Death, Dying and Disposal, Durham, UK.

30.

Klass

(1999). Developing a cross-cultural model of grief: The state of the field. OMEGA – Journal of Death and Dying, 39(3), 153.

31.

Klass

(2000). Response to Colin Murray Parkes; comments on my article “developing a cross-cultural model of grief.” OMEGA – Journal of Death and Dying, 41(4), 327–330.

32.

Kopp

S. W.

Kemp

(2007). The death care industry: A review of regulatory and consumer issues. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 41(1), 150–173.

33.

Krysinska

Andriessen

(2015). Online memorialization and grief after suicide: An analysis of suicide memorials on the Internet. OMEGA – Journal of Death and Dying, 71(1), 19–47.

34.

Landa

Szabo

Le Brun

Owen

Fletcher

Hill

(2011). An evidence-based approach to scoping reviews. Electronic Journal of Information Systems Evaluation, 14(1), 46–52.

35.

Levac

Colquhoun

Brien

K. K.

(2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, 5, 69.

36.

Lyon

(2007). Advance care planning for residents in aged care facilities: What is best practice and how can evidence-based guidelines be implemented? International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 5(4), 450.

37.

Mays

Roberts

Popay

(2001). Synthesising research evidence. In Fulop

Allen

Clarke

Black

(Eds.), Studying the organisation and delivery of health services: Research methods. London, England: Routledge.

38.

Mitchell

Stephenson

Cadell

Macdonald

(2012). Death and grief on-line: Virtual memorialization and changing concepts of childhood death and parental bereavement on the Internet. Health Sociology Review, 21(4), 413–431.

39.

Nansen

Kohn

Arnold

Van Ryn

Gibbs

(2017). Social media in the funeral industry: On the digitization of grief. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 61(1), 73–89.

40.

Neilson

Muise

(2016). Great granny lives on: Pursuing immortality through family history research. In Dobscha

(Ed.), Death in a consumer culture. New York, NY: Routledge.

41.

Peterson

Pearce

P. F.

Ferguson

L. A.

Langford

C. A.

(2017). Understanding scoping reviews: Definition, purpose, and process. Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, 29(1), 12–16.

42.

Power

(2017). Non-traditional funerals are changing how families and loved ones say goodbye. Retrieved from https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/nontraditional-funerals-are-changing-how-families-and-loved-ones-say-goodbye-20170316-guzhtg.html

43.

Roberts

(2004). The living and the dead: Community in the virtual cemetery. OMEGA – Journal of Death and Dying, 49(1), 57–76.

44.

Roberts

(2012). 2 people like this’: Mourning according to format. Bereavement Care, 31(2), 55–61.

45.

Schafer

(2016). Biography, authenticity and personalised post-mortem practices in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Ethnos, 81(5), 759–791.

46.

Schiffman

L. G.

O’Cass

Paladino

D’Alessandro

Bednall

(2011). Consumer behaviour (5th ed.). Frenchs Forest, Australia: Pearson Australia.

47.

Schwab

(1990). Paternal and maternal coping with the death of a child. Death Studies, 14(5), 407–422.

48.

Simone, C. (2010). Memorialising the Suicide Victim: ‘Walking the Walk’. In J. Hockey, C. Komaromy, & K. Woodthorpe (Eds.), The matter of death: Space, place, materiality. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

49.

Vale-Taylor

(2009). “ We will remember them”: A mixed-method study to explore which post-funeral remembrance activities are most significant and important to bereaved people living with loss, and why those particular activities are chosen. Palliative Medicine, 23(6), 537–544.

50.

van der Laan

Moerman

(2017). It’s your funeral: An investigation of death care and the funeral industry in Australia. Retrieved from http://sydney.edu.au/business/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/310140/Its_Your_Funeral_Report.pdf

51.

Veale

(2004). Online memorialisation: The web as a collective memorial landscape for remembering the dead. The Fibreculture Journal, 3, 1--18

52.

Walter

(1994). The revival of death. London, England: Routledge.

53.

Walter

Hourizi

Moncur

Pitsillides

(2012). Does the internet change how we die and mourn? Overview and analysis. OMEGA – Journal of Death and Dying, 64(4), 275–302.

54.

Williams

A. L.

Merten

M. J.

(2009). Adolescents’ online social networking following the death of a peer. Journal of Adolescent Research, 24(1), 67–90.

55.

Wilson

M. G.

Lavis

J. N.

Guta

(2012). Community-based organizations in the health sector: A scoping review. Health Research Policy and Systems, 10(1), 36.

56.

Woodthorpe

(2011). Using bereavement theory to understand memorialising behaviour. Bereavement Care, 30(2), 29–32.

57.

Zinner

(2016). The ritualised memorialisation of companion animals around the world. Bereavement Care, 35(3), 117–121.