ASA Adjudication on Midlands Co-Operative Society Ltd
Midlands Co-Operative Society Ltd t/a
George Crump & Son Funeral Directors
Central House
Hermes Road
Lichfield
Staffordshire
WS13 6RH
Date:
21 December 2011
Media:
Regional press
Sector:
Business
Number of complaints:
1
Complaint Ref:
A11-165544
Ad
A regional press ad, for a funeral directors, published on 8 July 2011, was headed "George Crump & Son Funeral Directors Est 1895". Further text stated "- Available day or night - Under the personal supervision of Michael J. Crump - Pre-Payment Plans - Monumental Masonry". Text underneath stated "incorporating Crumps Florists".
Issue
Powell & Family Ltd challenged whether:
1. the claim "Under the personal supervision of Michael J. Crump" misleadingly implied that Mr Crump was involved in the business on a daily basis; and
2. the ad was misleading, because they believed it implied the business was family-owned and family-run when they understood it was owned and run by the Midlands Co-operative Society.
CAP Code (Edition 12)
Response
1. Midlands Co-operative Society (MCO) said that Michael Crump was involved in the funeral business on a daily basis, and that he had overseen the vast majority of funerals conducted in 2010 and so far in 2011. They said Mr Crump's input to those funerals had been active and substantial, including the arrangement of funerals, personally conducting funerals, and carrying out interment of the cremated remains. They added that Mr Crump was available day or night to assist clients, and that many families requested his personal involvement at the time of death, in arranging a funeral and in the actual funeral itself. They provided spreadsheets that gave information about each funeral conducted by the business in 2010 and so far in 2011, including who had conducted the funeral, a statement from Mr Crump giving information about his duties, and a screenshot of their payroll system showing Mr Crump's weekly hours.
2. MCO said the ad did not state that George Crump and Son was an independent or family-run funeral business. They said Michael Crump's name was stated in the ad because bereaved families found it helpful to have the name of a person to ask for when they first made contact with the funeral home. They added that Michael Crump's wife ran the florist outlet of the funeral home part-time and provided a screenshot of their payroll system showing Mrs Crump's weekly hours.
Assessment
1. Not upheld
The ASA noted the spreadsheets sent by MCO showed that Michael Crump had conducted 89% of the funerals in 2010 and 94% of the funerals in 2011 up to the date the ad was published. We also noted the statement from Mr Crump and the screenshot of his payroll information. We considered the evidence demonstrated that Mr Crump personally supervised the majority of funerals conducted by the company, and was heavily involved in the day-to-day running of the business. We concluded the claim was not misleading.
On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code rules 3.1, 3.3 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation), but did not find it in breach.
2. Not upheld
We noted the complainant considered the overall impression of the ad was that George Crump & Son was family-owned and family-run, and that the ad was therefore misleading because the company had been owned by MCO since 2007, and Michael Crump was the only member of the family involved in the funeral director business.
We noted the ad did not make any specific claims that the company was family-owned or family-run, and we considered that that was not the overall implication of the ad. Rather, we considered that consumers were likely to infer from the ad that the Crump family were still involved in the business and that therefore the service would have certain family values. We noted we had seen evidence that Michael Crump was heavily involved in the funeral director business and that his wife worked for the associated florists, which meant it was likely that she would also be in personal contact with customers of the funeral business. We therefore considered the ad was not misleading.
On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1, 3.3 (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 (Substantiation), but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
Making a complaint
Find out what types of ads we deal with and how to make a complaint.
How to complain
Adjudications
View our latest weekly ASA adjudications or search for rulings from the last five years.
Adjudications
Sign up
Sign up for adjudications alerts and newsletters.
Sign up
Already registered? Log in
Follow Us
For ASA news, including our weekly rulings, press releases, research and reports.
Dealing with complaints - FAQs
We work hard to ensure our complaints procedures are transparent. Here we answer some commonly asked questions about how we handle complaints.
Dealing with complaints - FAQs
