4 l WWI W 1 Nil ‘ _.| 18: (mom TRENDS 3N REQUESTS FER THE OMESHON OF FLOWERS, AND EN SOLECITATIONS FOR MEMORiALS EN OBETUARY NO'HCES Thesis Tor Hue Degree 0‘? M. S. MTCHEGAN STATE UNITERSHTY James R. Lonsway 1957 grit!!! LIBRARY Michigan State University fiiidflq‘j ‘15.-h&j _ i ..H.. .rmx a . tailli, TRENDS IN REQUESTS FOR THE OMISSION OF FLOWERS, AND IN SOLICITATIONS FOR MEMORIALS IN OBITUARY NOTICES By JAMES R. LONSWAY AN ABSTRACT Submitted to the College of Agriculture of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Horticulture 1957 Approved Kifl at. (f IJ\J‘ 2km“; 3.1 JAMES R. LONS‘WAY ABSTRACT Requests for the omission of flowers in obituary notices have been known to exist for many years, but only recently has any attempt been made to ascertain the extent of this practice. A study was made of the obituary notices of The New York Times for the years 1954, 1955, 1956 and the first ten months of 1957. A sample of one week from each month in each of these years was taken. For the same period, a sample consisting of every fourth day throughout each of the years was taken from The Chicago Daily Tribune. Figures from both newspapers were recorded in a like manner. Requests for "Please Omit Flowers" were expressed as a percentage of total death notices. Those obituary notices iwhich, in addition to request- ing that flowers be omitted, also made solicitations for memorials were expressed as a percentage of (a) the total number of "Please Omit" re- quests, and (b) the total number of death notices. Also recorded from the solicitations for donations to memorials were figures showing the distribution of these solicitations according to the type of fund or charity mentioned. In addition to the above, a study was made of the "Please Omit" situation in 36 cities in the United States and Canada with the cooperation JAMES R. LONSWAY ABSTRACT - 2 of florists and members of the florist industry in these cities. Results show that during the period 1954 to 1957 there has been a significant increase in the incidence of "Please Omit" requests in obituary notices in both New York and Chicago. At the same time there has been a very marked increase in the number of solicitations for memorials ex- pressed both as a percentage of total "Please Omit" requests and as a percentage of total death notices. Of the funds and charities suggested as recipients, the churches do not receive as many as do hospital, heart and cancer research funds in New York. In Chicago, however, the opposite is true, and considerably more "Please Omit" requests contain solicitations for contributions to the church than to any of the other charitable organ- .. izations. The "Please Omit" problem varies considerably from city to city and from region to region throughout Canada and the United States accord- ing to reports received. In some cities the practice is little known while in others a considerable proportion of the death notices occuring in the newspapers contain requests for the omission of flowers and solicitations for memorials. TRENDS IN REQUESTS FOR THE OMISSION OF FLOWERS. AND IN SOLICITATIONS FOR MEMORIALS IN OBITUARY NOTICES By JAMES R. LONSWAY A THESIS Submitted to the College of Agriculture of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Horticulture 1957 /, 7—— 5'? @4743 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express his sincere thanks to Professor Paul R. Krone and to Mr. L. J. Tolle under whose supervision this re— search was conducted. Their guidance and understanding, their construc- tive criticisms, and their enthusiastic encouragement are deeply appre- ciated. The author is also indebted to the Michigan State Florists Association for the financial aid that made this work possible. In memory of my Grandmother, Martha Thompson Mills, a truly grand old lady, aged 88, who died on November 21, 1957 - - the day on which this work was completed. She would be happy to know that hers was not a "Please Omit" funeral. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . . ........... . . ...... REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . .............. PROCEDURE. . . . RESULTS . . . A. CONTINUATION OF TROTTER'S WORK. . . . B. REPORTS FROM 36 CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA ...... DISCUSSION OF RESULTS . ................ A. CONTINUATION OF TROTTER'S WORK. . . B. REPORTS FROM 36 CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA . . ............... CONCLUSIONS, . BIBLIOGRAPHY . APPENDIX . . . 16 23 23 25 62 62 65 67 69 71 INTRODUCTION The phrase "Please Omit Flowers" is a request that often appears in obituary notices in newspapers. It is a well-known fact that an important part of the retail florist business consists of the sale of flowers and funeral arrangements, the chief purpose of which is to aid the sender in the expression of his respect to the deceased and his sympathy to the bereaved. Trotter (1955) estimates that from 60 to 65 per cent of all sales of flowers are for funerals. Thus, it is natural that the florist industry as a whole should be vitally interested in the incidence of the phrase "Please Omit Flowers" as it appears in the obituary notices of newspapers throughout the country. During the latter half of the 19th Century, as the florist industry as we know it today was developing, there was an increasing acceptance of the important role played by flowers in expressing sentiment so difficult to ex- press in any other way. Almost since the beginning of the practice, however, there appears to have been some opposition to flowers at funerals, largely based on the grounds that they were pagan, that they were wasteful, and that there was a sense of reciprocal necessity attached to them (Habenstein and Lamers, 1955). As early as 1878 mention is made of the phrase "Omit the Flowers" in a letter written by the Bishop of Rochester, New York to the Catholic Times (Habenstein and Lamers, 1955). Trotter (1955) found that as early as 1903, 11. 7 per cent of the obituary notices appearing in the New York Times carried requests for the omission of flowers, and in more recent years there has been a gener— ally accepted and widespread belief among florists and industry leaders that there is a very definite trend toward increased use of "Please Omit Flowers". As Hixon (1956) states, it has only been during the past five and one-half years that the "Please Omit" problem has been considered to be of vital importance to members of the florist industry. A comparatively more recent development and one that as Trotter has shown has gained rapidly in popularity since World War II is the sug- gestion of memorials in lieu of flowers. Concerning this trend, Trotter (1955) makes the statement: "The widespread use of this technique of raising funds could seriously affect the demand for funeral flowers and thus the wel- fare of florists. Conceivably, over a period of years it could materially alter the custom of using flowers as an expression of sympathy. . . . . . . The consequences to florists if this general attitude became more prevalent among the American public would indeed be serious. " One objective of this paper has been to learn what change, if any, has occurred in the incidence of "Please Omit" and memorial suggestions in New York and Chicago since 1953. A second objective has been to gather similar data from many cities and towns in the United States and Canada in order to learn just how extensive "Please Omit" and memorial suggestions are in areas outside New York and Chicago. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Two early references to the "Please Omit" practice were found. The first was the letter written by the Bishop of Rochster, New York to the Catholic Times in 1878 (Habenstein and Lamers, 1955) which read, in part, as follows: "Whatever of sentiment may have been in the use of flowers on and around a corpse when, at first, loving hands placed a few near it was killed by usage demanding that such tributes should be repaid on the first occasion available. Thus, in time, floral tributes for the house of mourning became a question of give and expect; a compliment to a friend with a marketable value attached. No wonder that some families deprecate the invasion of their homes with such tributes and cry out, 'Omit tn the flowers . The second reference was made by Puckle (1926) who noted that it was during the 1890's when the supply of natural flowers was still seasonal and spotty that the use of artificial flowers and "immortelles" were widely sold. Those natural flowers available were used to create huge floral pieces such as "Gates Ajar" and "The Broken Column". Of such pieces and "im- mortelles" Puckle (1926) says: "Strung into the form of harps, anchors, broken columns, etc., they (flowers) are frankly vulgarized; and if this much may be said of natural flowers, how can we describe the 'immortelle' in its glass case, with the added horrors of sugary cloves and clasped hands - the despair of those whose duties it is to regulate the decencies of the Churchyard. And how we long for the day when it Vn will no longer be neceSsary to advertise 'No flowers by request . Such opinions as these indicate that two factors, namely (1) the reciprocal idea that early became associated with the giving of funeral flowers, and (2) the excesses and "vulgarity" of early funeral flower pieces, may have been the cause of a negative reaction to funeral flowers and marked the beginning of the "Please Omit" trend. Kates (1957) says "Please Omit Flowers" really means ”Please Omit Sentiment", and everything possible should be done . . . . . to discourage the materialistic thought involved in such requests". He believes that Amer— ican people today, on the whole, do not feel that money spent for flowers for their dead is "wasteful" or "pagan". But, he warns, this attitude may change under the consistent flow of criticism being directed at all the sentimental symbols of veneration for the dead. Such criticism of the practice of sending flowers to funerals as that contained in the article entitled "Living Memorials Instead of Flowers" by Harold Whitman which appeared in the October 1956 issue of the Readers Digest, is strong evidence of the concentrated effort being made by organ- izations and individuals to undermine the custom. Whitman's article sug- gests to millions of readers of the Digest that business dollars, ordinarily set aside to buy flowers, be diverted into scholarship funds and thereby bypass the florist industry entirely. There are many other instances where similar efforts are being made by charitable organizations, churches, "service" clubs, alumni associations and even colleges, solely for the purpose of raising funds for their particular projects. Among the individuals engaged in this apparent "crusade" against the custom of expressing thoughts and sentiments with flowers is a new- comer, Catherine Marshall (1957) who, in her book To Live Again makes the following statement: "‘We in the United States are now spending more on burials than on seeing that our babies are brought into the world safely, more on funerals than we do on hospitals. The figure has now risen to more than 500 million dollars a year. On top of that, we spend another 60 million dollars on funeral flowers. "One modern nation finally became sufficiently alarmed about the gigantic waste implicit in funeral flowers to do something about it. Since 1921, Sweden has had a national organization called the 'Flower Fund'. Money that would be spent on flowers is sent instead as a memorial to the flower fund. This money is then used for modern housing developments for needy old people. The fund has long been a gigantic success, shedding light and joy into the lives of the still living. "Our own nation has no such plan. Still there is an increasing trend toward making a contribution to a favorite charity in mem- ory of the one who has died instead of sending expensive flowers that wilt in twenty-four hours. This trend has grown to such proportions that the organized florists are feeling threatened. Hence, during the last year and a half, at least two such organ- izations have been spending large sums on national advertising. trying to re-persuade the American people that nothing can possibly take the place of flowers for comforting the bereaved. " 7___,__-_____-, _. The tremendous increase in solicitations for memorials in lieu of flowers during the past few years is undoubtedly the result of such efforts as those mentioned above to mold public opinion in opposition to the custom of sending flowers at the time of death. Nor is the situation likely to im- prove under the influence of such articles as the above quotation by Mrs. Marshall. Much mention has been made herein of the opposition to the use of funeral flowers and to the practice of soliciting donations in lieu of flowers. At the same time, it should be noted that there are many who have of recent years spoken out in criticism of such ideas and have written to express the important role played by flowers at a funeral. Among these are such prominent men as Dr. Frederick Brown Harris, Chaplain of the United States Senate, who says: "Whence comes this incongruous suggestion? Omit flowers - in the Valley of the Shadow, when every yearning impulse is struggling vainly to express feelings that are too deep for words! "Then it is that flowers offer wings to affection, appreciation and consolation, to wistful memories and assurances of sympathy. H . . . . . . How impertinent appears a banner with this strange device: 'Please Omit Flowers' - omit ‘priests, sermons, shrines!"' Crane (----) has this to say of funeral flowers: "Many people in modern America have urged the omission of flowers from funerals, thinking to salvage such money for charity. But it is possible to destroy the idealism of a beautiful 'graduation' ceremony by stripping it of the flowers that surround our final farewell ............ "If flowers are NOT sent to the funeral, the sender seldom contributes any extra money to the poor, anyway. " Senator W. Kerr Scott of North Carolina (1956) made the state- ment that "Death of a loved one calls for banks of flowers, a tribute to the goodness of his life and to ease the sorrow we feel at his or her passing". From December 1950 to March 1951, the Grant Advertising, Inc. conducted a "Please Omit Flowers study in the city of Worcester, Massa- chusetts. Their most significant finding was that those people who had attended a funeral where the request was made for the omission of flowers were more inclined to be in favor of the practice than those who had not attended such a funeral. These results coincide with findings of the Florists Information Council study conducted in November and December, 1952. A survey in March of 1951 by Grant Advertising, Inc. of 193 funeral directors in 11 cities throughout the United States indicated that 25. 4 per cent of all those interviewed believed that the tendency to omit flowers had increased during the past year; 14. 0 per cent believed it had decreased, and 56. 5 per cent thought it had remained about the same; while 4. 1 per cent offered no opinion. Two results of this survey of particular interest were (1) 71. 5 per cent of the directors said that people seldom, if ever, ask their advice about omitting flowers, and (2) all of the directors said that they receive some flowers for funerals in spite of family requests to omit them. A second survey, also in March, 1951 by Grant Advertising, Inc. consisted of 992 personal interviews in 11 cities throughout the country in an attempt to study public opinion of the practice of omitting flowers at funerals. Results showed that one out of every three persons interviewed favored omitting flowers. With increasing age from twenty to fifty, there was a consistent increase in the number favoring the omission of flowers. Considerable variation in results was found from city to city and from one region of the country to another. For example, more people in Washington and New York favored the omission of flowers than in Indianapolis and Miami. Four out of every ten people in favor of omitting flowers felt that the money would be better used for charitable or research work such as cancer or heart funds. In November and December of 1952, the Florists Information Coun- cil conducted a personal interview with 1008 persons in 19 cities across the country. Results showed that the idea of requesting that flowers be omitted from a funeral received outright approval from 33 per cent. This coincides with findings of the Grant Advertising, Inc. survey in 1951. Another 38 per cent gave only limited or qualified approval of the practice. Very few of the people interviewed favored funerals entirely without flowers. The statement is made that "It is people's feelings about funerals, about death, and about charity-mot their feeling about flowers or florists--that leads to approval of the Please Omit idea". Of those interviewed, about 34 per cent had attended a funeral where the family had asked that flowers be omitted. Further questioning as to their own reaction, the reasons for the request, etc. resulted in answers which the authors feel might indicate considerable cause for concern about a future trend toward more please omit requests. For example, 63 per cent of those who had attended a "Please Omit" funeral expressed approval; 59 per cent said that, so far as they knew, the family concerned was satisfied with the funeral and had no regrets about omitting flowers; people who had attended a "Please Omit" funeral were found to be much more favorable to the idea than people who had not done so; 45 per cent said they had attended funerals where they felt there were too many flowers with the result that they were thus in favor of omitting flowers. A supplementary report of the November and December 1952 survey conducted by the Florists Information Council gave an analysis of findings for individual cities involved in the survey. The cities of Los Angeles. California; Dallas, Texas; Binghamton, New York; and Providence, Rhode 10 Island consistently showed less approval of the "Please Omit" practice than any of the other sixteen cities surveyed. Possible reasons for this are suggested by the fact that in every one of these four cities, fewer than average had (a) attended a "Please Omit" funeral, (b) heard of the practice at all, or (c) attended a funeral where they felt there were "too many" flowers. The cities of Atlanta, Chicago, Des Moines, Kansas City, Racine, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Waterbury all showed high percen- tages in favor of "Please Omit". In all of these cities more than 90 per cent of those interviewed were familiar with the please omit idea, and in the cities of Chicago, Des Moines, Kansas City and Waterbury, far more than the national average (34 per cent) had attended funerals where flowers were omitted. Religious denomination was found to be of little or no sig- nificance in accounting for variations in acceptance of the "Please Omit" idea from city to city. The material reviewed of the Grant Advertising, Inc. and the Florists Information Council dealt with opinion surveys which attempted to determine the extent of public acceptance, rejection or indifference toward the "Please Omit" idea. Regarding such surveys, it should be kept in mind that the re are many variable factors that may influence the reliability of the data. The techniques involved in sampling, the wording of the questions so as to avoid biased answers, interpretation of the data and the fact that 11 the survey was conducted over a wide area are all important factors to be taken into consideration before arriving at definite conclusions from the data presented. Unfortunately, it was found during this review of pertinent literature that there was a great dearth of information and concrete evidence avail- able to indicate the extent of growth, if any, of the "Please Omit" idea over the years. One of the first attempts made to measure the incidence of "Please Omit" was in January 1951 when Grant Advertising, Inc. did a spot check of the obituary columns of twenty-one newspapers throughout the nation. A one-day sample was used from each paper during the months of September to December for the years 1948, 1949 and 1950. Results showed that in 1948, 4. 9 per cent of all the obituary notices in the sample carried requests for the omission of flowers, 4. 2 per cent in 1949, and 4. 0 per cent in 1950. In June of 1955 there appeared the results of the first extensive and thorough study of the "Please Omit" subject in a publication entitled Problems in Marketingjlorist Crops by Warren K. Trotter of the Depart— ‘ment of Agricultural Economics at Cornell University. This study dealt with two newspapers only--The New York Times from 1903, and '_I‘_h_e Chicago Daily Tribune from 1921. Trotter found that in the Times the proportion of death notices containing requests to omit flowers ranged 12 from a low of 6. 5 per cent in 1927 to a high of 11. 7 per cent in 1903. Obviously then, the idea must have originated much earlier than this in order to have reached such a high proportion by 1903. Following World War 11 there was a slight increase, but in 1953 the proportion (10. 6 per cent) was almost the same as it had been in 1948, and was, in fact, even lower than it had been in 1952 (ll. 3 per cent). Trotter's data from The Chicago Tribune begins in 1921 when 4. 7 per cent of the obituaries carried requests to omit flowers. Throughout the study the incidence of "Please Omit" was consistently lower in the Tribune than in the Times. Trotter explains this as being the result of differences in "popu- lation characteristics" between the two areas. The range for Chicago was from a low of 3. 7 per cent in 1945 to a high of 8. 0 per cent during the de- pression year of 1933. In Chicago, as in New York, there was a slight in- crease following World War II from 3. 7 per cent in 1945 to 6. 6 per cent in 1953. Trotter found that not until 1918 was there a suggestion made in the Times that money be contributed to a memorial in lieu of sending flowers. .Until 1948 only a very small percentage of the obituaries carried the sugges- tion, but the practice grew rapidly until by 1953 nearly one-third of all "Please Omit" notices in the Times suggested memorial gifts in lieu of flowers. It was not until 1939 that the first memorial suggestion in lieu of 1.3 flowers appeared in the Tribune, but, as in the m, the idea grew rapidly after 1948 and by 1953 nearly one-fourth of all "Please Omit notices in the Tribune suggested memorial gifts in lieu of flowers. Contrary to a widespread belief in the florist industry that the solici- tation of charitable organizations for contributions in lieu of flowers had materially affected the incidence of "Please Omit", Trotter found little evidence to support this belief. However, as he stated, his data covers only a short period in which the practice of soliciting donations in lieu of flowers has been common. Trotter found that 112 different funds were suggested as beneficiaries in 203 notices appearing in the 'I_‘_i_n_1e__s in 1952. Of these, cancer, heart, church, and hospitals were the four types of funds or charities most frequently suggested in both the Times and the Tribune. The only other source of information as to the extent of the "Please Omit" problem has been in the form of letters recently received by Professor Krone from member of the florist industry in various parts of the country. Many variations in collecting, recording and interpreting figures have no doubt occurred making it difficult, if not impossible, to consider them in relation to each other. Shaner (1957) reports a total of l, 776 funerals in Baltimore during the month of August, 1957 with 158 requests for "Please Omit". This is 14 almost 9 per cent of the total. For the month of September, the total number of deaths was 1, 811 with 144, or almost 8 per cent, requesting "Please Omit". Williams (1957) reported 52, 193 obituary notices in Minneapolis dur- ing the period February 1951 to July 1952. Of these, 3, 163 or slightly more than 6 per cent, contained requests for "Please Omits" and memorials. A later survey from September 1954 through May 1955 in St. Paul and from November 1954 through May 1955 in Minneapolis showed the situation had worsened considerably (no figures quoted); this despite manymonths of daily ads in the obituary columns. Shaw (1957) reports the following results of a study conducted in the cities of St. Louis and Kansas City from November 1, 1950 through March 31, 1951: Total Deaths No. of "P. O. '3" Per Cent St. Louis. . . . . 4,962 194 3.9 Kansas City. . . . 2,384 70 2.9 McMullen, a florist in State College, Pennsylvania, has reported the following: 15 Funera_1_s_ No. of "P. O. 's" 1950 ........ 117 10 1951 ........ 98 5 1952 ........ 95 7 1953 ........ 131 17 1954 ........ 95 17 1955 ........ 121 12 1956 ........ 110 11 Esslinger (1957) reports that in 1952, "Please Omit s were running approximately three and one-half per cent of the total funerals in Philadelphia. For the first eight months of 1957, the average is close to six and one-half per cent. Werstler (1957) states that obituary notices in the Champaign, Illinois newspapers . . . ..... have not contained 'Please Omit' up to the present time, and it is unlikely that they will in the near future". There has been an occasional request for funds for charity or a memorial in some news stories, but seldom is any reference made to flowers, states Mr. Werstler. 16 PROCEDURE In his study, Trotter (1955) sampled every third year of T_h_e New York Times from 1903 to 1951, and in addition, the years 1952 and 1953. From each month of each of these years he selected, at random, a one-week sample from which be listed the number of obituaries (Table I). To provide a check on the sampling technique used, every fourth day was tabulated for the year 1952, as well as the one-week sample taken from each of the twelve months of 1952. The results were comparable--Il. 6 per cent from the sample of every fourth day, as compared to 11. 3 per cent from the one-week sample in each month. From The Chicago Daily Tribune, 4 every third year was sampled from 1921 through 1951, plus the years 1952 and 1953 (Table 2). The sample this time consisted of every fourth day in each year taken. In addition to recording the total number of death notices and the num- ber requesting that flowers be omitted, Trotter recorded the proportion of "Please Omit" requests that also carried requests for solicitations to mem- orials in lieu of flowers. A distribution of these requests, according to kind of fund or charity to which contributions could be made in lieu of flowers, is found in Tables 3 and 4. 17 Using Trotter's sampling technique for both The New York Times and The Chicago Daily Tribune, and recording findings in the same way, data covering the "Please Omit" and memorial requests for the years 1954, 1955, 1956, and the first ten months of 1957, were gathered by the author. The second part of this paper involves a study of the incidence of the phrase ”Please Omit Flowers" and the solicitations for memorials in many parts of the United States and Canada during the period October 1 to 28, 1957. For this study the cooperation of florists and executives of flor- ist associations in 45 cities of varying size was enlisted. The selection of the cities was done by Professor Krone. The cities were selected so as to obtain as wide a geographic representation as possible and in practically all cases the initial letter soliciting cooperation in this study was addressed to a well-known active member of the florist industry in each particular city. Because most of these people were personal ac- quaintances of Professor Krone, it was anticipated that a good response would be received. The initial letter mailed September 10th requesting cooperation (Appendix A) was accompanied by a sample of the form on which we wished to have the data recorded (Appendix B). From the 45 letters sent out, a final total of 36 replies agreeing to cooperate were received (see map, Appendix C, for distribution of cooper- 18 ating cities). All of these replies were not received at once. To those who had replied by September 25th, a second letter (Appendix D) with forms covering the 4-week period, was sent. Also, on the 25th of September, a follow-up letter (Appendix E) with additional reporting forms was sent to those from whom no reply had been received. By October 10th, a number of reports covering data for the first week of October had been received, and on this date a third letter (Appendix F) was sent to all 45 persons included in the original request for coopera- tion. The statement was made that there was still time for those who had neglected to write us but now felt able to help in the study, to do so. From this letter and the letter of September 25, a number of returns were re- ceived which, it is doubtful, would have otherwise been forthcoming. On October 30th, a fourth letter (Appendix G) was mailed--this time only to those from whom we had received replies agreeing to cooperate. Th1 3 letter contained our thanks for cooperation, our offer to mail a copy of our findings when completed, and a brief outline of our proposed con- tinuation of the "Please Omit" study. TABLE 1 PROPORTION OF PAID DEATH NOTICES REQUESTING THAT FLOWERS BE OMITTED, AND PROPORTION OF "PLEASE OMIT" NOTICES SUGGESTING MEMORIAL GIFTS IN LIEU OF FLOWERS. THE NEW YORK TIMES. 1903 to 1953*. Total Number Number Percent Number Percent Year Death Notices Requesting Requesting Suggest- Suggest- in Sample“ Flowers be Flowers be ing Mem- ing Omitted Omitted orials Memorials 1903 1053 123 11.7 - - 1906 1298 118 9.1 - - 1909 1544 139 9.0 - 1912 2058 175 8.5 - - 1915 3009 295 9.8 - - 1918 5140 482 9.4 3 .6 1921 4703 376 8.0 3 .8 1924 5569 419 7.5 2 .5 1927 5550 360 6.5 8 2.2 1930 5679 462 8.1 5 1.1 1933 5582 496 8.9 14 2.8 1936 5902 478 8.1 12 2.5 1939 5603 481 8.6 15 3.1 1942 5504 492 8.9 17 3.5 1945 6324 605 9.6 10 1.7 1948 6537 697 10.7 43 6.2 1951 6252 654 10.5 151 23.0 1952 6433 727 11.3 172 23.7 1953 6454 683 10.6 203 29.7 Total 90, 194 8, 262 9. 2 658 8. 0 *Adapted from Tables 25 and 26, pages 57 and 59 "Problems in Marketing Florist Crops" by Warren K. Trotter, Department of Agricultural Econ- omics, Cornell University. MSample for each year consisted of one full week selected at random from each of the twelve months. 20 TABLE 2 PROPORTION OF PAID DEATH NOTICES REQUESTING THAT FLOWERS BE OMITTED, AND PROPORTION OF "PLEASE OMIT" NOTICES SUGGESTING MEMORIAL GIFTS IN LIEU OF FLOWERS, THE CHICAGO DAILY TRIBUNE. 1921 to 1953*. Percent Suggesting Percent Number Requesting Suggesting Total Number Number Year Death Notices Requesting in Sample“ Flowers be Flowers be Memorials Memorials Omitted Omitted 1921 1705 81 4. 8 - - 1924 2238 111 5. 0 - - 1927 2298 103 4. 5 - 1930 4019 I76 4. 4 - 1933 3708 296 8. 0 - 1936 4827 252 5. 2 - 1939 5713 331 5.8 I M” 1942 6842 301 4. 4 1 *** 1945 9102 338 3. 7 1 **"‘ 1948 9198 533 5. 8 26 4. 9 1951 11306 690 6.1 83 12. 0 1952 11603 671 5.8 115 17. l 1953 11960 792 6. 6 189 23. 9 Total 84519 4675 5. 5 416 8. 9 *Adapted from Tables 26 and 28, pages 58 and 60 "Problems in Marketing Florist Crops" by Warren K. Trotter. Department of Agricultural Econ- omics, Cornell University. MSample consisted of every fourth day in the year. *"Less than . 5 percent. TABLE 3 KINDS OF FUNDS OR CHARITIES SUGGESTED IN "PLEASE OMIT" NOTICES TO WHICH CONTRIBUTIONS COULD BE MADE AS MEMORIALS IN LIEU OF FLOWERS, THE NEW YORK TIMES, 1918 to 1953*. Kind of Fund or Charity Suggested Year“ . , , Hospital Church Cancer Heart Children S Miscel— Total*"‘* Home laneous I918 - 3 - - - - 3 1921 - 3 - - - - 3 1924 - 2 r - - - 2 1927 - 8 - - - - 8 1930 - 5 - - - - 5 1933 - 9 - - - 5 14 1936 - 10 - - - 2 12 1939 - 15 - - - - 15 1942 - 13 - - - 4 17 1945 2 8 - - - - 10 1948 5 13 13 1 - ll 43 1951 36 20 26 22 12 35 151 1952 44 37 38 23 2 28 172 1953 41 33 37 24 9 59 203 Total 128 179 114 70 23 144 658 *Table 29, page 61 "Problems in Marketing Florist Crops" by Warren K. Trotter, Department of Agricultural Economics, Cornell University. “Sample for each year consisted of one full week selected at random from each of the twelve months. I ***The total number of funds may vary from total number of notices suggest- ing funds because some notices suggest more than one fund. 22 TABLE 4 KINDS OF FUNDS OR CHARITIES SUGGESTED IN "PLEASE OMIT" NOTICES TO WHICH CONTRIBUTIONS COULD BE MADE AS MEMORIALS IN LIEU OF F LOWERS. THE CHICAGO DAILY TRIBUNE. 1939 to 1953*. Kind of Fund or Charity Suggested YearM _ Hospital Church Cancer Heart Children's Miscel- Total*** Home laneous 1939 — - - — 1 - 1 1942 - - - ~ - 1 1 1945 - - - - - 1 1 1948 2 4 13 - 3 4 26 1951 8 24 20 8 8 21 89 1952 13 33 19 17 3 30 115 1953 15 46 50 30 15 38 194 Total 38 107 1 02 55 30 95 427 l *Table 30, page 61 "Problems in Marketing Florist Crops" by Warren K. Trotter, Department of Agricultural Economics, Cornell University. “‘Sample consisted of every fourth day in the year. ***The total number of funds may vary from the total number of notices sug- ' gesting funds because some notices suggest more than one fund. 23 RESULTS A. CONTINUATION OF TROTTER'S WORK In Tables 5 through 26 are recorded findings relative to the incidence, in obituary notices, of requests that flowers be omitted from funerals. Also shown are data indicating the increase in requests that funds be donated to various charities and churches in lieu of sending flowers to funerals. The data were obtained from the obituary columns of The New York Times and The Chicago Daily Tribune for the years 1954, 1955, 1956, and for the first ten months of 1957. Included in these tables are complete figures for the samples taken in each month. This distribution, according to months, is included because of the apparent seasonal fluctuations that occur in deaths in both New York and Chicago. Reasons for such fluctuations are not apparent. An analysis to determine whether there is a seasonal relationship between the incidence of requests for the omission of flowers and the number of deaths might prove well worth looking into. However. such an investigation is considered to be beyond the scope of this paper. Table 27 is compiled from Trotter's figures and expresses mem- orials suggested as a percentage of total death notices for the years 1918 to 1953 for the T_im_is and the Tribune. Table 28 is compiled from Tables 9 and 20 of the author's study and expresses memorials suggested as a 24 percentage of total death notices for the years 1954 to 1957 for the Times and the Tribune. From these two Tables (27 and 28), it is possible to compare the trend in "Please Omit" requests as a percentage of total deaths with the trend in memorials as a percentage of total deaths. This is graph- ically illustrated in Figure 1. From Figure 1 in which "Please Omit" requests are graphically plotted as a percentage of total death notices over the years 1903 to 1957 for The New York Times and over the years 1921 to 1957 for The Chicago DailyTribune, marked fluctuations are evident for both cities. A rank correlation analysis of Trotter's data for the period 1903 to 1951 for The New York Times showed no significant trend toward an increase in the number of "Please Omit" requests during this 48 year period. However, an analysis of Trotter's figures from 1951 to 1953 along with the author's findings for 1954 to 1957 indicates a very definite upward trend in "Please Omit" requests in New York City. Similar results were obtained from an analysis of data for The Chicago Daily Tribune. Over the period 1921 to 1951 no significant trend (was indicated. However, as in New York, an analysis of Trotter‘s figures for 1951 to 1953, along with the author's figures for 1954 to 1957 for the Tribune indicated a very marked upward trend in "Please Omit" requests in that city during these years (Figure 1). The results of Trotter's study of memorials as a proportion of "Please Omits" for the years 1915 to 1953, along with the author's find- ings for 1954 through 1957 for both New York and Chicago are graphically illustrated in Figure 2. B. REPORTS FROM 36 CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA Tables 29 through 38 cover florists' reports received for the 36 cities surveyed in the United States and Canada during the period Octo- ber I to 28, 1957. As was true of material mentioned in the review of literature, the fact that the reports have been compiled by many different people in many different parts of the country tends to reduce somewhat the reliability of the results. TABLE 5 PROPORTION OF PAID DEATH NOTICES REQUESTING THAT FLOWERS BE OMITTED. AND PROPORTION OF "PLEASE OMIT" NOTICES SUGGESTING MEMORIAL GIFTS IN LIEU OF FLOWERS. THE NEW YORK TIMES. 1954. l I Total Num - Number Percent Num ber Percent Month ber of Death Requesting Requesting Suggest- Suggest- Notices in Flowers be Flowers be ing ing Sample“ Omitted Omitted Memorials Memorials January 455 52 11. 4 12 23. 1 February 413 51 12. 4 22 43. 1 March 365 36 9. 9 12 33. 3 April 437 38 8. 7 9 23. 7 May 398 48 12. l 17 35. 4 June 363 47 13. 0 20 42. 6 July 382 25 6. 5 9 36. 0 August 382 37 9. 7 17 46. 0 September 385 30 7. 8 7 23. 3 October 377 52 13. 8 17 32. 7 November 417 46 ll. 0 18 39. 1 December 466 51 10. 9 15 29. 4 Total 4, 840 513 10. 6 175 34. 1 ‘M *Sample consisted of one full week selected at random in each month. TABLE 6 PROPORTION OF PAID DEATH NOTICES REQUESTING THAT FLOWERS BE OMITTED, AND PROPORTION OF "PLEASE OMIT" NOTICES SUGGESTING MEMORIAL GIFTS IN LIEU OF FLOWERS. THE NEW YORK TIMES. 1955. Total Num- Number Percent Number Percent Month ber of Death Requesting Requesting Suggest- Suggest- Notices in Flowers be Flowers be ing ing Sample* Omitted Omitted Memorials Memorials january 441 51 11. 6 15 29. 4 February 441 59 13. 4 18 30. 5 March 428 58 13. 6 21 36. 2 April 418 46 11.0 21 45.7 May 338 45 13. 3 16 35. 6 June 356 43 12. 1 16 37. 2 july 381 41 10. 8 14 34. 2 August 375 49 13. 1 17 34. 7 September 390 44 1 l. 3 11 25. 0 October 398 49 12. 3 18 36. 7 November 439 37 8. 4 16 43. 2 December 404 45 11. 1 21 46. 7 Total 4. 809 567 1 1. 8 204 36. 0 ———:—m 1 *Sample consisted of one full week selected at random in each month. TABLE 7 PROPORTION OF PAID DEATH NOTICES REQUESTING THAT FLOWERS BE OMITTED, AND PROPORTION OF "PLEASE OMIT" NOTICES SUGGESTING MEMORIAL GIFTS IN LIEU OF FLOWERS. THE NEW YORK TIMES. 1956. Total Num- Number Percent Number Percent Month ber of Death Requesting Requesting Suggest- Suggest- Notices in Flowers be Flowers be ing ing Sample“ Omitted Omitted Memorials Memorials January 408 42 10. 3 18 42. 9 February 389 53 13. 6 16 30. 2 March 407 51 12. 5 19 37. 3 April 385 45 ll. 7 19 42. 2 May 412 47 11. 4 20 42. 6 June 389 45 11. 6 15 33. 3 July 352 45 12. 8 15 33. 3 August 379 41 10. 8 17 41. 5 September 414 43 10. 4 20 46. 5 October 435 46 10. 6 16 34. 8 November 444 47 10. 6 21 44. 7 December 418 42 10.1 21 50. 0 Total 4, 832 547 11. 3 217 39. 7 *Sample consisted of one full week selected at random in each month. TABLE 8 29 PROPORTION OF PAID DEATH NOTICES REQUESTING THAT FLOWERS BE OMITTED, AND PROPORTION OF "PLEASE OMIT" NOTICES SUGGESTING MEMORIAL GIFTS IN LIEU OF FLOWERS, THE NEW YORK TIMES. JANUARY TO OCTOBER, 1957. Total Num- Number Percent Number Percent Month ber of Death Requesting Requesting Suggest- Suggest- Notices in Flowers be Flowers be ing ing Sample“ Omitted Omitted Memorials Memorials January 465 70 15. 1 33 47. 1 February 390 48 12. 3 27 56. 3 March 432 65 15. 1 37 56. 9 April 408 49 12. 0 22 44. 9 May 393 43 10. 9 16 37. 2 June 396 51 12. 9 25 49. 0 July 419 43 10. 3 28 65. 1 August 352 40 1 1. 4 26 65. 0 September 405 47 11. 6 22 46. 8 October 462 38 8. 2 22 57. 9 Total 4, 122 . 494 12. 0 258 52. 2 *Sample consisted of one full week selected at random in each month. 30 TABLE 9 PROPORTION OF PAID DEATH NOTICES REQUESTING THAT FLOWERS BE OMITTED, AND PROPORTION OF "PLEASE OMIT" NOTICES SUGGESTING MEMORIAL GIFTS IN LIEU OF FLOWERS. THE NEW YORK TIMES. 1954 to 1957. Total Num- Number Percent Number Percent Year ber of Death Requesting Requesting Suggest- Suggest- Notices in Flowers be Flowers be ing ing Sample* Omitted Omitted Memorials Memorials 1954 4. 840 513 10. 6 175 34. 1 1955 4. 809 567 11. 8 204 36. 0 1956 4.832 547 11. 3 217 39. 7 I957 (Jan-Oct) 4, 122 494 12. 0 258 52. 2 Total 18, 603 2, 121 11. 4 854 40. 3 *Sample consisted of one week selected at random in each of the twelve months. TABLE 10 KINDS OF FUNDS OR CHARITIES SUGGESTED IN "PLEASE OMIT" NOTICES TO WHICH CONTRIBUTIONS COULD BE MADE AS MEMORIALS IN LIEU OF FLOWERS. THE NEW YORK TIMES. 1954. Kind of Fund or Charity Suggested Month” Hospital Church Cancer Heart School Other Total January 4 - l 3 2 2 12 February 5 1 5 5 - 6 22 March 2 2 2 3 - 3 12 April 1 - 4 1 - 3 9 May 8 - 3 — - 6 17 June 3 - 4 2 - 11 20 July - - 3 . 4 - 2 9 August 2 l 4 2 - 8 17 September - 1 1 2 - 3 7 October 2 2 5 4 1 3 17 November 2 1 8 3 l 3 18 Decem ber - 1 4 4 - 6 15 Total 29 9 44 33 4 56 175 *Sample consisted of one full week selected at random in each month. TABLE 11 KINDS OF FUNDS OR CHARITIES SUGGESTED IN "PLEASE OMIT" NOTICES TO WHICH CONTRIBUTIONS COULD BE MADE AS MEMORIALS IN LIEU OF FLOWERS. . THE NEW YORK TIMES. 1955. Kind of Fund or Charity Suggested Month* Hospital Church Cancer Heart School Other Total January 2 4 2 - - 7 I 5 February 5 2 4 3 - 4 18 March 5 1 3 6 - 6 21 April 3 4 2 4 1 7 21 May 3 - 5 - 3 5 16 June 6 2 3 - - 5 16 July 6 - 2 l - 5 14 August 3 1 3 4 2 4 17 September 1 - 2 2 - 6 11 October 3 5 4 3 - 3 18 November 2 - 4 3 - 7 16 December 7 1 3 2 - 8 21 Total 46 20 37 28 6 67 204 *Sample consisted of one full week selected at random in each month. TABLE 12 KINDS OF FUNDS OR CHARITIES SUGGESTED IN "PLEASE OMIT" NOTICES TO WHICH CONTRIBUTIONS COULD BE MADE AS MEMORIALS IN LIEU OF FLOWERS. THE NEW YORK TIMES. 1956. I i Kind of Fund or Charity Suggested Month* Hospital Church Cancer Heart School Other Total January 3 2 3 - 1 9 18 February 2 2 4 2 1 5 16 March 1 4 2 3 l 8 19 April 2 1 3 4 2 7 19 May 3 3 8 2 - 4 20 June I 3 3 3 - 5 15 July 1 - 5 1 - 8 15 August 1 2 2 4 - 8 17 September 3 4 3 - - 10 20 October 1 1 3 4 — 7 16 November ' 5 3 3 3 - 7 21 December 3 4 1 2 1 10 21 Total 26 29 40 28 6 88 217 *Sample consisted of one full week selected at random in each month. TABLE 13 KINDS OF FUNDS OR CHARITIES SUGGESTED IN "PLEASE OMIT" NOTICES TO WHICH CONTRIBUTIONS COULD BE MADE AS MEMORIALS IN LIEU OF FLOWERS, THE NEW YORK TIMES. JANUARY-OCTOBER. 1957. Kind of Fund or Charity Suggested Month* Hospital Church Cancer Heart School Other Total January 1 - 9 7 2 1 4 33 February 5 3 6 4 - 9 27 March 8 3 6 8 - 12 37 April - - 4 8 1 9 22 May 1 1 2 3 l 8 16 June 6 1 5 6 - 7 25 July 3 4 9 4 — 8 28 August . 4 1 8 3 - 10 26 September 3 3 5 4 — 7 22 October 4 4 2 3 - 9 22 Total 35 20 56 50 4 93 258 *Sample consisted of one full week selected at random in each month. TABLE 14 KINDS OF FUNDS OR CHARITIES SUGGESTED IN ”PLEASE OMIT" NOTICES TO WHICH CONTRIBUTIONS COULD BE MADE AS MEMORIALS IN LIEU OF FLOWERS, THE NEW YORK TIMES, 1954 TO OCTOBER. 1957. Kind of Fund or Charity Suggested Year * Hospital Church Cancer Heart School Other Total 1 954 2 9 9 44 33 4 56 1 75 I 955 46 20 37 28 6 67 204 1 956 26 29 40 28 6 88 21 7 1957 (Jan- Oct) 35 20 56 50 4 93 258 Total I 36 78 l 77 1 39 20 304 854 *Sample for each year consisted of one full week selected at random from each of the twelve months. 36 «83900 8 33:3. 65:08 cob: do?» some 5 £38.: @3625 65 mo 20mm 803 Eoecmu um vouoofiom x83 :3 ono mo noumwmcoo 036mm... il 4mm 0 .mm vom m .N ON m .3 o3 N .3 >3 3 .a 3 o .3 03 3,83. me o .3. 3. o .3 v v .3 om N. AN on m .5 ON 0 .3 mm :33 SN c .3 mm m .N c o .3 3 v .3 ow v .3 3 o .3 0N 33 43 m .Nm no a .N o N .3 3 3 .3 pm. w .m ON m .NN 3. mm3 m3 0 .Nm cm m .N w o .3 mm. 3 .3 3. 3 .m a o .3 3 $3 noumowwsm 22 :33. 30er L33. Eoozom :38. “new: :33. .8050 380.3. 5.350 380.3. 13303 new» mmfizuee. Iamoshmomfi I m 0s I I I I I a... .s I I I Ians ..... a... .s. I I I I Irma IIIIIII I 30 a AN 3; m .m 3 o .3 on m .3 33 N .NN 23 m .3 w3 380.”. m3 3 .3 mm 4 .4 o w .3 3 «N N .3 pm m .3 3. N .ON 2. 33 N: m .2 mm N 4 N w .2 mm 3 .3 mm m .3 S. 0 .mm 3. $2 33 N .3 mm o .w 3 o .3 NN N .3 ON m .3 ON w .3 on E3 3. o.mN 2 I I 3N 3 N.om 3 Ndm 3 0.: m 33 3 I I I I I I I I o .3 w o .3 N 3.3 3 m .3 w I I I I I I m .2. 3 I I N43 3 I I I I I I I I o .03 3 I I 33 3 33 N I I I I I I m. .3 3 I I 3.3 3 NI .3 m I I I I I I m .3 a I I 33 m I I I I I I I I o 63 m I I 3.3 w I I I I I I I I o .o3 m I I 5N3 N I I I I I I I I o 63 N I I 4N3 m I I I I I I I I o .o3 m I I 3N3 m. I I I I I I I I o .o3 m I I 33 coumomwsm 22 :83. 38:2 :83. oEoI :33. Humor :33. .8280 330.3. 5.320 330% 3833.: same? .8522 Each. mo 05 382.2 .6 as £8250 Haas .33 3. 33 .333. 030.» .232 m... mafia Mm 0.500 305383.200 $053 3. 33.—.330 mo m3 m3 @4303. Haas aw. 262 m5. .2353 .5 am: 22 Sago E 025883 $2.52 E20 ”223% mag o IBM IA . .Iu.._.r...$. ‘ u: um'l‘vII. . E. .r...\ i TABLE 16 PROPORTION OF PAID DEATH NOTICES REQUESTING THAT FLOWERS BE OM- ITTED. AND PROPORTION OF "PLEASE OMIT" NOTICES SUGGESTING MEM- ORIAL GIFTS IN LIEU OF FLO‘WERS, THE CHICAGO DAILY TRIBUNE, 1954. Total Num- Number Percent Number Percent Month* ber of Death Requesting Requesting Suggest- Suggest- Notices in Flowers be Flowers be ing ing Sample Omitted Omitted Memorials Memorials January (7) 955 72 7. 5 25 34. 7 February (7) 915 78 8. 5 22 28. 2 March (8) 1, 072 72 6. 7 23 31. 9 April (8) 979 69 7. l 25 36. 2 May (7) 855 72 8. 4 18 25. 0 June (8) l. 125 86 7. 6 26 30. 2 July (8) 915 60 6. 6 13 21. 7 August (7) 800 54 6. 8 13 24. 1 September(8) 921 65 7. 1 ll 16. 9 October (8) 992 88 8. 9 35 39. 8 November (7) 884 71 8. 0 18 25. 4 December (8) 1, 084 90 8. 3 23 25. 6 Total (91 days) 11, 497 877 7. 6 252 28. 7 -'-——-—— _- *Sample consisted of every fourth day in the year. Note: The numbers in the brackets after each month indicate whether the sample for that month contained seven or eight days. TABLE 17 PROPORTION OF PAID DEATH NOTICES REQUESTING THAT FLOWERS BE OMITTED. AND PROPORTION OF "PLEASE OMIT" NOTICES SUGGESTING MEMORIAL GIFTS IN LIEU OF FLOWERS, THE CHICAGO DAILY TRIBUNE, 1955. Total Num- Number Percent Number Percent Month* ber of Death Request- Request- Suggest- Suggest- Notices in ing Flowers ing F low- ing ing Sample be Omitted ers be Memorials Memorials Omitted January (7) 951 58 6. l 13 22. 4 February (7) 927 56 6. 0 15 26. 8 March (8) 1, 054 90 8. 5 27 30. 0 April _(8) l, 020 112 11. 0 30 26. 8 May (7) 888 79 8. 9 23 29. 1 June (8) 989 97 9. 8 37 38. 1 July (8) 1, 117 90 8. 1 32 35. 6 August (7) 893 75 8. 4 21 28. 0 September(8) 1 , 046 114 10. 9 41 36. 0 October (8) 884 93 10. 5 38 40. 9 November (7) 936 90 9. 6 35 38. 9 December (8) 1 ,9 245 l 14 9. 2 37 32. 5 Total (91 days) 11, 950 1, 068 8. 9 349 32. 7 —A- ! *Sample consisted of every fourth day in the year. Note: The numbers in the brackets after each month indicate whether the sample for that month contained seven or eight days. 38 TABLE 1 8 PROPORTION OF PAID DEATH NOTICES REQUESTING THAT FLOWERS BE OMITTED, AND PROPORTION OF "PLEASE OMIT" NOTICES SUGGESTING MEMORIAL GIFTS IN LIEU OF FLOWERS, THE CHICAGO DAILY TRIBUNE. 1956. Total Num- Number Percent Number Percent Month* ber of Death Request- Request- Suggest- Suggest- Notices in ing Flowers ingFlowers ing ing Sample be Omitted be Omitted Memorials Memorials January (8) 1, 181 104 8. 8 51 49. 0 February (7) 971 113 11. 6 60 53. 1 March (8) 1, 035 88 8. 5 31 35. 2 April (7) 967 85 8. 8 33 38. 8 May (8) 1, 121 102 9.1 49 48. 0 June (7) 1, 002 81 8. 1 33 40. 7 July (8) 1, 095 110 10. 1 47 42. 7 August (8) 984 83 8. 4 33 39. 8 September(7) 904 87 9. 6 33 37. 9 October (8) 1, 011 94 9. 3 44 46. 8 November (8) l, 083 98 9. 1 53 54. 1 December (7) 1,067 118 11.1 49 41. 5 Total (91 days) 12, 421 1, 163 9. 4 516 44. 4 _ —_ *Sample consisted of every fourth day in the year. Note: The numbers in the brackets after each month indicate whether the sample for that month contained seven or eight days. 39 V4.9 r . - C 40 TABLE 19 PROPORTION OF PAID DEATH NOTICES REQUESTING THAT FLOWERS BE OMITTED, AND PROPORTION OF "PLEASE OMIT" NOTICES SUGGESTING MEMORIAL GIFTS IN LIEU OF FLOWERS, THE CHICAGO DAILY TRIBUNE. JANUARY TO OCTOBER, 1957. Total Num- Number Percent Number Percent Month * berof Death Request- Request- Suggest- Suggest- Notices 1n ing Flowers ing Flowers mg mg Sample be Omitted be Omitted Memorials Memorials January (8) 1,201 138 11. 5 61 44. 2 February (7) 995 103 10. 4 46 44. 7 March (8) 1, 070 89 8. 3 39 43. 8 April (7) 1, 004 81 8. l 39 48. 2 May (8) 1, 054 86 8. 2 39 45. 4 June (8) 1, 077 93 8. 6 38 40. 9 July (7) 918 75 8. 2 37 49. 3 August (8) 1, 041 90 8. 7 42 46. 7 September(8) 861 88 10. 2 46 52. 3 October (7) 882 73 8. 3 29 39. 7 To; (76 days)10, 103 916 9. 1 416 45. 4 *Sample consisted of every fourth day in the year. MNote: The numbers in the brackets after each month indicate whether the sample for that month contained seven or eight days. 41 TABLE 20 PROPORTION OF PAID DEATH NOTICES REQUESTING THAT FLOWERS BE OMITTED, AND PROPORTION OF "PLEASE OMIT" NOTICES SUGGESTING MEMORIAL GIFTS IN LIEU OF FLOWERS, THE CHICAGO DAILY TRIBUNE, 1954 TO 1957. r‘ Total Num- Number Percent Number Percent Year ber of Death Request- Request- Suggest- Suggest- Notices in ing Flowers ing Flowers ing ing Samp1e* be Omitted be Omitted Memorials Memorials 1954 11, 497 877 7. 6 252 28. 7 ' 1955 11, 950 1, 068 8. 9 349 32. 7 1956 12,421 1,163 9.4 516 44.4 1957 (Jan-Oct)10, 103 916 9. 1 416 45. 4 Total 45, 971 '4, 024 8. 8 1, 533 38. 1 *Sample consisted of every fourth day in the year. TABLE 21 KINDS OF FUNDS OR CHARITIES SUGGESTED IN "PLEASE OMIT" NOTICES TO WHICH CONTRIBUTIONS COULD BE MADE AS MEMORIALS IN LIEU OF FLOWERS, THE CHICAGO DAILY TRIBUNE, 1954. Kind of Fund or Charity Suggested Month” Hospital Church Cancer Heart School Other Total January (7)"‘ * 2 3 5 2 2 11 25 February (7) 3 3 3 l 1 11 22 March (8) I 2 4 4 4 - 9 23 April (8) 2 8 6 2 3 4 25 May (7) 2 2 1 3 1 9 18 June (8) 1 ' 8 4 2 2 9 26 July (8) 1 7 3 - - 2 1 3 August (7) l 2 2 2 l 5 1 3 September(8) - 2 3 2 - 4 1 1 October (8) 2 7 7 4 - 1 5 35 Novem ber (7) 1 5 2 3 - 7 18 December (8) 1 5 2 3 1 11 23 _ Total (91 days) 1 8 56 42 28 11 97 252 — _.—+ *Sample consisted of every fourth day in the year. "The numbers in the brackets after each month indicate whether the sample for that month contained seven or eight days. TABLE 22 KINDS OF FUNDS OR CHARITIES SUGGESTED IN "PLEASE OMIT" NOTICES TO WHICH CONTRIBUTIONS COULD BE MADE AS MEMORIALS IN LIEU OF FLOWERS, THE CHICAGO DAILY TRIBUNE, 1955. Kind of Fund or Charity Suggested Mm” Hospital Church Cancer Heart School Other Total January (7)* * 2 2 4 l 1 3 1 3 February (7) l 3 6 1 - 4 15 March (8) 3 5 6 3 3 7 27 April (8) 4 7 5 3 2 9 30 May (7) 1 4 8 4 — 6 23 June (8) 6 9 6 - 3 13 37 July (8) 2 8 6 4 1 1 l 32 August (7) — 3 2 5 - 11 21 September (8) 5 16 5 l 1 13 41 October (8) 2 ll 7 4 1 13 38 November (7) 1 6 7 4 1 16 35 December (8) 2 15 ' 7 5 2 6 37 Total (91 days) 29 89 69 35 15 112 349 *Sample consisted of every fourth day in the year. “The numbers in the brackets after each month indicate whether the sample for that month contained seven or eight days. TABLE 23 KINDS OF FUNDS OR CHARITIES SUGGESTED IN "PLEASE OMIT" NOTICES TO WHICH CONTRIBUTIONS COULD BE MADE AS MEMORIALS IN LIEU OF F LOWERS, THE CHICAGO DAILY TRIBUNE, 1956. Kind of Fund or Charitj Suggested Month” Hospital Church Cancer Heart School Other Total January (8)M 4 16 10 6 1 14 51 February (7) 2 10 8 10 3 27 60 March (8) 3 l 5 10 1 11 31 April (7) 4 7 4 5 4 9 33 May (8) 3 ll 13 9 - 13 49 June (7) 2 8 4 4 3 12 33 July (8) 7 I 8 5 6 3 18 47 August (8) 3 9 6 2 1 12 33 September (7) 3 12 5 3 2 8 33 October (8) 5 4 12 5 1 17 44 November (8) 10 14 7 5 - 17 53 December (7) 1 13 10 7 2 16 49 Total (91 days) 47 1 13 89 72 21 174 516 *Sample consisted of every fourth day in the year. MThe numbers in the brackets after each month indicate whether the sample for that month contained seven or eight days. TABLE 24 KINDS OF FUNDS OR CHARITIES SUGGESTED IN "PLEASE OMIT" NOTICES TO WHICH CONTRIBUTIONS COULD BE MADE AS MEMORIALS IN LIEU OF FLOWERS, THE CHICAGO DAILY TRIBUNE, JANUARY-OCTOBER, 1957. Kind of Fund or Charity Suggested Month" Hospital Church Cancer Heart School Other Total January (8)” _ 5 17 14 11 3 11 61 February ( 7) 5 l3 6 10 3 9 46 March (8) 6 10 8 2 2 11 39 April (7) 1 14 5 2 - 17 39 May (8) 3 l3 6 2 1 14 39 June (8) - 13 8 3 1 13 38 July (7) 5 10 5 7 2 8 37 August (8) 4 11 12 7 - 8 42 September (8) 6 l3 7 6 l 13 46 October (7) - 9 2 3 2 13 29 Total (76 days) 35 123 73 53 15 117 416 *Sample consisted of every fourth day in the year. ** The numbers in the brackets after each month indicate whether the sample for that month contained seven or eight days. 45 Li’l‘l’ll’ 46 TABLE 25 KINDS OF FUNDS OR CHARITIES SUGGESTED IN "PLEASE OMIT" NOTICES TO WHICH CONTRIBUTIONS COULD BE MADE AS MEMORIALS IN LIEU OF FLOWERS, THE CHICAGO DAILY TRIBUNE, 1954 TO 1957. Kind of Fund or Charity Suggested Year“ Hospital Church Cancer Heart School Other Total 1954 18 56 42 28 11 97 252 1955 29 89 69 35 15 112 349 1956 47 113 89 72 21 174 516 1957 (Jan-Oct) 35 123 73 53 15 117 416 Total 129 381 273 188 62 500 l, 533 *Sample consisted of every fourth day in the year. 47 #3860 9 335% 65:06 HEP: .Hmocn of :H 5% 5.38 39.6 Ho noumHmaoo magnum... mmm .H o .Nm com o .H. No m .NH wwH w NH mwN m .N me v .w oNH H38. 0:, H .mN EH ed mH >.NH mm mNH m» odN mNH Him mm. :53 03 N .mm Ha: H .Ho HN o .vH N» N NH am a .HN mHH H .o S. 83 ovm H .Nm NHH m. .Ho mH o .3 mm m .oH mo m .mN mm m .m N mmmH NmN m .3 3 H. .H, HH H .HH N w .3 NH, N .NN on H .n wH vmoH cosmowwom mHmH H881 956:3 H381 Hoonom H88. H.863 H809. .8280 HSorH. £6,320 H309. HSEmoI 4.36% -8822 :38. ch as 1822 an as c N co as Ho as co m. NNH, N .NN mo o .N. om o .NH mm o .N NoH H .N SH m .w mm :38. on o .oH mm H. .H. H m .mH on w .mN om H. .mN ow H. .L. mH mmmH mHH H.oN om 0N m ma: NH de oH n.wN mm mi: 2 NmoH mm o .N HN o .o m o .o w m .NN ON C .NN N o .o w HmoH 0N v.2 Ho m.HH , m - - 0.0m mH HimH H, 0.x. N wvaH H o .03 H - - - - - - - - - - mva H o .2: H - - - - - - - - - - Nva H - - o .02 H - .. - - - - - - omoH cocmomwzm mHmH H381 c.5852 H38. 680: H88, H309. So So -85on :38. Ho ca .3822 Ho 05 9:86:50 Ho HR 9863 Ho 05 $280 HHo am. £6,330 HHo MW H338: tumor .hmoH Oh. omoH .mZDmHE >435 OO1: 4: at- NO report received. anti, . . TABLE 33 PROPORTION OF PAID DEATH NOTICES REQUESTING THAT FLOWERS BE OMITTED, AND PROPORTION OF "PLEASE OMIT" NOTICES SUGGESTING MEMORIAL GIFTS IN LIEU OF F LOWERS, 36 CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA. , ”#1?— — ——— M TOTALS — 4-week Period Total Number Percent Number Percent Number Request- Request- Suggest- Suggest- of Death ing Flowers ing Flowers ing Mem- ing Mem- October 1 -28, 1 957 Newspaper Notices be Omitted be Omitted orials orials Baltimore Sun ................ 2, 405 211 8. 8 64 30. 3 Boise Daily Statesman ......... 44 0 0 0 0 Buffalo Courier Express ....... l, 318 62 4. 7 36 ‘58. 1 Buffalo Evening News ......... 1, 774 78 4. 4 42 53. 8 Chicago Daily Tribune ........ 4, 258 403 9. 5 130 32. 3 Cleveland Plain-Dealer ....... 2, 061 98 4. 6 71 72. 5 Corvallis (Ore. )Gazette Times 15 1 6. 7 l” 100. 0 Detroit News, W 20771 {0 ,e y H if 0 ‘**Duluth Herald and News Tribune 48 2 4. 2 2 100. 0 Elkhart Truth and South Bend Tribune (comb. ) ......... 721 2 . 3 2 100. 0 Kansas City Star. . . . . ........ 456 23 5. 0 15 65. 2 Knoxville Journal. . . . ......... 417 0 0 0 O LaCrosse (Wis.) Tribune ..... 199 1 . 5 1 100. 0 Lansing State Journal ......... 149 3 2. 0 3 100. 0 Lexington Herald- Leader ..... 89 2 2. 3 0 0 Louisville Courier-Journal. . . . 433 10 2. 3 6 60. 0 Los Angeles Times and L. A. Examiner (comb. ) ........ l, 597 72 4. 5 61 84. 7 Milwaukee Journal ............ 841 28 3. 3 24 85. 7 “’4 Minneapolis Morning Tribune and Evening Star (comb.) 756 137 18. 1 120 87. 6 Montgomery Advertiser ....... 237 l . 4 0 0 ”Nashville Tennessean ......... 106 0 0 0 0 New Orleans Times-Picayune. . 314 12 1- 5 5 41. 7 New York Times ............ . 2, 550 295 l l. 6 200 67. 8 Norfolk Dispatch and Pilot (comb) 101 8 7. 9 3 37. 5 Ottawa (Canada) Citizen ....... 521 11 2. 1 4 36. 4 Philadelphia Inquirer ..... . . . . . 2, 048 131 6. 4 65 49. 6 Raleigh Times and News and Observer (comb. ). . . . . . . . 586 l . 2 0 0 Roanoke Times ............... 397 5 1. 3 2 ' 40. 0 San Antonio Express .......... 228 9 4. 0 7 77. 8 Seattle Post Intelligencer ...... 888 43 4. 8 40 93. 0 Spokane Spokesman-Review. . . 238 16 6. 7 13 81. 3 St. Louis Post Dispatch and Globe Democrat (comb. ). . 1, 180 65 5. 5 55 84. 6 “St. Paul Pioneer Press and Dispatch (comb.) ......... 215 32 14. 9 31 96. 9 Toronto (Canada) Daily Star. . . 1, 814 35 1. 9 9 25. 7 “Tulsa World. ................ 132 3 2. 3 3 100. 0 Vancouver (Canada) Sun ....... 756 97 12. 8 21 21. 6 Washington (D. C.) Star. ...... 1,067 73 6. 3 52 71, 2 "Possibility of error in these figures. MWReports received do not cover entire 4-week period. TABLE 34 KINDS OF FUNDS OR CHARITIES SUGGESTED IN "PLEASE OMIT" NOTICES TO WHICH CONTRIBUTIONS COULD BE MADE AS MEMORIALS IN LIEU OF F LOWERS, 36 CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA. WEEK OF October 1-7, 1957 Kind of Fund or Charity Suggested Newspaper Hospital Church Cancer Heart School Other Total *Baltimore Sun ................. * "' * * * * Boise Daily Statesman ......... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Buffalo Courier Express ....... 3 3 0 3 0 l 10 Buffalo Evening News .......... l 2 l 5 0 0 9 Chicago Daily Tribune. . . . . . . . . 5 6 3 8 l 7 30 Cleveland Plain Dealer ......... 2 5 0 2 0 7 16 Corvallis (Ore. )Gazette Times. . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detroit News, m Mom ........ 0 3 1 2 0 2 8 Duluth Herald and News Tribune 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 Elkhart Truth and South Bend Tribune (comb.) ........... 0 O 0 0 0 2 2 Kansas City Star ............... 0 2 0 0 0 O 2 Knoxville Journal. . . . ........... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LaCrosse (Wis.) Tribune ....... 0 1 0 0 0 0 l Lansing State Journal ........... 0 0 0 0 0 l 1 Lexington Herald-Leader ....... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Louisville Courier-Journal; ..... 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 Los Angeles Times and L. A. Examiner (comb.) .......... 2 l 4 2 0 3 12 Milwaukee Journal .............. 0 0 0 0 3 4 ”Minneapolis Morning Tribune Evening Star (comb.) ....... 1 l4 2 7 6 6 36 Montgomery Advertiser ......... 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 ’ Nashville Tennessean ........... 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 New Orleans Times Picayune. . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 New York Times ............... 9 13 15 11 1 9 58 Norfolk Dispatch and Pilot (comb.) 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 Ottawa (Canada) Citizen ......... 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Philadelphia Inquirer. . . . ........ 3 3 3 2 0 3 14 Raleigh Times and News and Observer (comb. ). . ......... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Roanoke Times ................. 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 San Antonio Express. . . . ........ 0 0 0 0 0 l 1 Seattle Post Intelligencer ........ 3 0 3 1 0 2 9 Spokane Spokesman-Review ...... 1 0 3 2 0 1 7 St. Louis Post Dispatch and Globe Democrat (comb.).......... 0 6 2 1 0 5 14 St. Paul Pioneer Press and Dis- patch (comb.) .............. 0 8 2 1 0 5 16 Toronto (Canada) Daily Star ..... 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 TulsaWorld......... ......... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vancouver (Canada) Sun ......... 0 2 2 2 0 0 6 Washington (D. C.) Star. . . . . . . . . 2 3 1 2 0 2 10 ‘Totals only for entire month reported. See totals page. * *Possibility of error in these figures. KINDS OF FUNDS OR CHARITIES SUGGESTED IN "PLEASE OMIT" NOTICES TO WHICH CONTRIBUTIONS COULD BE MADE AS MEMORIALS IN LIEU OF FLOWERS, 36 CITIES TABLE 35 IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA. WEEK OF October 8-14, 1957 Kind of Fund or Charity Suggested Newspaper Hospital Church Cancer Heart School Other Total *Baltimore Sun ...... . .......... "' * * "' * "‘ * Boise Daily Statesman .......... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Buffalo Courier Express ........ l l l 2 0 1 6 Buffalo Evening News ........... 2 5 1 2 0 1 11 Chicago Daily Tribune .......... 5 9 6 1 0 5 36 Cleveland Plain-Dealer ......... l 3 2 . 3 0 5 l4 Corvallis (Ore. )Gazette Times. . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detroit News, We W9 ............. l 5 5 3 1 1 16 “*Duluth Herald and News Tribune Elkhart Truth and South Bend Tribune (comb.) ........... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kansas City Star. . . . ........... 1 2 0 0 1 1 5 Knoxville Journal. . ............. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LaCrosse (Wis.) Tribune ....... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lansing State Journal ........... 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 Lexington Herald- Leader ....... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Louisville Courier-Journal ...... 0 0 0 2 0 1 3 Los Angeles Times and L. A. Examiner (comb.) .......... 0 0 5 2 1 ' 1 9 Milwaukee Journal ...... . ....... 0 5 0 0 0 2 7 Minneapolis Morning Tribune Evening Star (comb.) ....... 3 9 5 4 1 3 25 Montgomery Advertiser. . . ...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ”Nashville Tennessean ........... New Orleans Times-Picayune. . . . 0 l 0 0 0 1 2 New York Times ............... 9 15 8 8 3 7 60 Norfolk Dispatch and Pilot (comb. ) 0 0 l 0 0 0 1 Ottawa (Canada) Citizen ......... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Philadelphia Inquirer ............ 2 6 2 1 l 3 15 Raleigh Times and News and Observer (comb.) .......... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Roanoke Times. . . ............. 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 San Antonio Emress ........... 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 SeattlePost Intelligencer ....... 2 2 2 5 O 4 15 Spokane Spokesman-Review ..... 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 St. Louis Post Dispatch and Globe Democrat (comb.) ..... . . . . 2 2 2 0 0 6 12 St. Paul Pioneer Prees and Dispatch (comb.) .......... 0 6 3 2 2 2 15 Toronto (Canada) Daily Star. . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *Tulsa World. ................. Vancouver (Canada) Sun ........ 0 0 1 3 0 2 6 Washington (D. C. ) Star. . ....... 3 l 6 2 0 4 16 56 * Totals only for entire month reported. See totals page. * * "' No report received. T KINDS OF FUNDS OR CHARITIES SUGGESTED IN "PLEASE OMIT" NOTICES TO WHICH CONTRIBUTIONS COULD BE MADE AS MEMORIALS IN LIEU OF FLOWERS, 36 CITIES TABLE 36 IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA. WEEK OF October 15-21, 1957 Kind of Fund or Charity Suggested Newspaper Hospital Church Cancer Heart School Other Total *Baltimore Sun ................ "' "' "' * ”‘ "' * Boise Daily Statesman ......... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Buffalo Courier Express ....... 2 4 5 2 0 3 16 Buffalo Evening News. ......... 0 4 4 2 0 2 12 Chicago Daily Tribune ......... l 9 8 5 2 l 36 Cleveland Plain-Dealer ........ l 7 2 7 0 5 22 Corvallis (Ore.) Gazette Times 0 l 0 0 0 0 1 Detroit News, m WM). ...... 0 3 1 1 0 3 8 "”Duluth Herald and News Tribune Elkhart Truth‘and South Bend Tribune (comb.) .......... O 0 0 O 0 0 0 Kansas City Star .............. 0 3 0 1 0 l 5 Knoxville Journal .............. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LaCrosse (Wis.) Tribune ....... 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 Lansing State Journal ........... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lexington Herald- Leader ....... 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 Louisville Courier-Journal ...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Los Angeles Times and L. A. Examiner (comb.). ......... 2 0 4 8 0 5 19 Milwaukee Journal .............. 0 2 l 0 0 l 4 Minneapolis Morning Tribune Evening Star (comb. ) ....... 3 11 2 0 1 4 21 Montgomery Advertiser ......... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 "Nashville Tennessean ........... New Orleans Times-Picayune. . . . 0 l 0 0 0 1 2 New York Times ............... 10 10 7 4 3 2 46 Norfolk Dispatch and Pilot (comb.) 0 0 0 0 0 ' 0 0 Ottawa (Canada) Citizen ......... 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 Philadelphia Inquirer ............ 6 4 4 l 1 5 21 Raleigh Times and News and Observer (comb.) .......... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Roanoke Times ................ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 San Antonio Express ........... 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 Seattle Post Intelligencer ....... 2 1 0 2 0 1 6 Spokane Spokesman-Review ..... 0 0 2 1 0 0 3 St. Louis Post Dispatch and Globe Democrat (comb. ). . . . 3 9 0 0 0 3 15 *St. Paul Pioneer Press and Dispatch (comb.) ........... Toronto (Canada) Daily Star ..... 0 0 l 0 0 0 l Tulsa World. .................. 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 Vancouver (Canada) Sun. . . . . . . . . 1 0 3 0 0 1 5 Washington (D. C.) Star ......... 0 2 2 1 0 4 9 * ’1‘ "' No report received. *Totals only for entire month reported. See totals page. 57 TABLE 37 KINDS OF FUNDS OR CHARITIES SUGGESTED IN "PLEASE OMIT" NOTICES TO WHICH CONTRIBUTIONS COULD BE MADE AS MEMORIALS IN LIEU OF FLOWERS, 36 CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA. fir; r WEEK OF October 22-28, 1957 Kind of Fund or Charity Suggested 58 Newspaper Hospital Church Cancer Heart School Other Total *Baltimore Sun ................ "‘ * "' "‘ * * * Boise Daily Statesman ......... 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 Buffalo Courier Express ....... 0 0 2 l 0 l 4 Buffalo Evening News .......... 0 2 3 2 0 3 10 Chicago Daily Tribune ......... 0 3 6 5 l 3 28 Cleveland Plain-Dealer ....... . 0 9 2 2 0 6 l9 Corvallis (Ore.) Gazette-Times 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Detroit News, We: Manner-k ........... 0 3 4 3 0 2 12 """'Duluth Herald and News Tribune Elkhart Truth and South Bend Tribune (comb.) .......... 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 Kansas City Star ............. 0 0 1 0 0 2 3 Knoxville Journal ..... . ....... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LaCrosse (Wis.) Tribune ...... 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 Lansing State Journal. . . . . ..... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lexington Herald- Leader ...... 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 Louisville Courier—Journal ..... 0 0 l 0 0 0 1 Los Angeles Times and L. A. Examiner (comb. ). . . , ..... 7 1 3 3 0 7 21 Milwaukee Journal; ............ 0 5 2 1 0 l 9 Minneapolis Morning Tribune Evening Star (comb.) ...... 7 12 4 5 4 6 38 Montgomery Advertiser ........ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ”Nashville Tennessean ......... New Orleans Times-Picayune. . 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 New York Times ............. 9 5 3 6 0 3 36 Norfolk Dispatch and Pilot (comb.) 0 0 1 0 0 l 2 Ottawa (Canada) Citizen ....... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Philadelphia Inquirer .......... 1 2 2 6 0 4 15 Raleigh Times and News and Observer (comb.) ......... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Roanoke Times ........ . ....... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 San Antonio Express .......... 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Seattle Post Intelligencer ...... 0 0 3 3 0 4 10 Spokane Spokesman-Review. . . . 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 St. Louis Post Dispatch and Globe Democrat (comb.) ......... 2 8 0 0 O 4 14 *St. Paul Pioneer Press and Dispatch (comb. ) .......... Toronto (Canada) Daily Star. . . . 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 Tulsa World. ................. 0 l 0 0 O 0 1 Vancouver (Canada) Sun ........ 0 0 2 0 0 2 4 Washington (D. C.) Star ........ 4 3 4 4 4 2 17 *Totals only for entire month reported. See totals page. ***No report received. TABLE 38 59 KINDS OF FUNDS OR CHARITIES SUGGESTED IN "PLEASE OMIT" NOTICES TO WHICH CONTRIBUTIONS COULD BE MADE AS MEMORIALS IN LIEU OF FLOWERS, 36 CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA. TOTALS FOR 4‘WEEK PERIOD ' Kind of Fund or Charity Suggested October 1-28 inclusive, 1957 _ Newspaper Hospital Church Cancer Heart School Other Total Baltimore Sun .................. 9 2 l9 l9 0 15 64 Boise Daily Statesman .......... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Buffalo Courier Express ......... 6 8 8 8 0 6 36 Buffalo Evening News ............ _ 3 13 9 11 0 6 J 42 Chicago Daily Tribune ........... 11 27 23 19 4 46 130 Cleveland Plain-Dealer .......... 4 24 6 l4 0 23 71 Corvallis (Ore.) Gazette Times. . 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Detroit News, M Ma). ............. l 14 11 9 1 8 44 "* Duluth Herald and News Tribune 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 Elkhart Truth and South Bend Tribune (comb.) ............ 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 Kansas City Star ................ 1 7 1 1 1 4 15 Knoxville Journal ................ 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 LaCrosse (Wis.) Tribune ......... 0 l 0 0 0 0 1 Lansing State Journal ...... ‘ ....... 0 0 0 l 0 2 3 Lexington Herald- Leader ........ . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Louisville Courier-Journal ........ 0 0 1 2 0 3 6 Los Angeles Times and L. A. Examiner (comb. ) ........... ll 2 16 15 1 16 61 Milwaukee Journal ............... 0 13 3 1 0 7 24 ”Minneapolis Morning Tribune Evening Star (comb.) ........ 14 46 13 16 12 19 120 Montgomery Advertiser .......... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *Nashville Tennessean ............ 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 New Orleans Times-Picayune ..... 0 3 0 0 0 2 5 New York Times ................. 37 43 33 29 7 51 200 Norfolk Dispatch and Pilot (comb.) 0 0 2 0 O 1 3 Ottawa (Canada) Citizen .......... 1 0 3 0 0 0 4 Philadelphia Inquirer ............. 12 15 11 10 2 15 65 Raleigh Times and News and Observer (comb. ) ............ 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 Roanoke Times .................. 0 0 0 0 l 1 2 San Antonio Express ............. 0 l 0 0 0 6 7 Seattle Post Intelligencer ......... 7 3 8 11 0 11 40 Spokane Spokesman-Review ....... l 1 6 4 0 l 13 St. Louis Post Dispatch and Globe Democrat (comb.) ........... 7 25 4 1 0 18 55 St. Paul Pioneer Press and Dispatch (comb.) ............ 0 l4 5 3 2 7 31 Toronto (Canada) Daily Star ...... l 1 1 0 0 6 9 Tulsa World. ................... 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 Vancouver (Canada) Sun ...... . . . . l 2 8 5 0 5 21 Washington (D. C.) Star. . . . ...... 9 9 13 9 o 12 52 __________________________________________________ IM'Possibility of error in these figures. M"'Reports received do not cover entire 4-week period. t E 60 k I l ily rk 8 7 6 5 4 32qu Econ :38. Ho :80 non N ll Int . 61 S e .m T. k 0 5 3 2 45 40 35 28.8862 mcjnvmmso 333.53 0 5 2 l "-3) ,8].-- I. 0 1 62 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS A. CONTINUATION OF TROTTER‘S WORK While it is true that the analysis of the long run period, 1903 to 1951 indicates no significant trend toward an increase in the number of "Please Omit" requests in either New York or Chicago, the analysis of figures for both (cities for the short run 1951 to 1957 shows a very marked upward trend. In fact, except for small fluctuations, the trend has been on the increase in New York since 1927, and in Chicago since 1945, with no indication of a major decline or reversal of the trend in the near future. The deep concern and concentrated efforts being put forth by florists and by the industry as a whole in an attempt to combat the "Please Omit" pro- blem would, therefore, appear well justified. Trotter felt that because of the comparatively short time covered by his study during which the practice of suggesting memorial gifts had been common, any increase in "Please Omit" in New York and Chicago could not justifiably be attributed to this practice. Figure 1 would indicate that during the past few years the rapidly growing practice of soliciting memorials may indeed be responsible, at least in part, for the upward trend in "Please Omit" requests. While the increase of memorials as a percentage of total death notices is much greater than the increase of "Please Omit" requests 63 as a percentage of total deaths, it should be noted that the former is be- coming an increasingly larger proportion of the latter. This means, of course, that more and more "Please Omit" requests contain suggestions for memorials. This growing trend is verified by Figure 2, in which it is shown that in New York during the first ten months of 1957, 52. 2 per cent of the total "Please Omit" requests contained suggestions for mem- orials. Table 15 shows that in New York all solicitations during the period 1918 to 1930 were for donations to the church. Following World War H however, other organizations, including many charities, began soliciting funds with the result that by 1948, only 16. 3 per cent of the total obituaries suggesting memorials in lieu of flowers named the church as the beneficiary. In the first ten months of 1957 in New York, only 7. 8 per cent of the "Please Omit" requests suggested contributions to the church. Requests for dona- tions to hospitals, and heart and cancer research funds were all consider- ably higher than this figure. A different picture is presented by Table 26 for Chicago where requests for memorials to churches have always exceeded solicitations for donations to any of the other charities, with the exception of the years 1948 and 1953, when slightly more requests were made for contributions to the cancer research fund. Trotter believes that the consistently lower percentage of "Please Omit" requests in Chicago as compared to New York can be explained on the basis of differences in "population characteristics". He does not attempt to define these characteristics which, if known, might explain why in New York fewer "Please Omit" obituaries contain solicitations for contributions to the church than for such charitable organizations as hospitals, and cancer and research funds, while just the opposite is true in Chicago. It is obvious that solicitations represent a very real threat to the florist industry today, and one that is most difficult to combat, since it is being sanctioned and perpetrated in a great many instances by people who are extremely influential in the molding of public opinion in the estab- lishment of, or the breaking down of, the customs and practices of the masses. The fact that obituary notices upon the death of such people as actor Humphrey Bogart and Vice-President Nixon‘s father, suggested mem- orials instead of flowers does much to influence public opinion in favor of the practice. It may be argued that although the obituary notices for such promin- ent people as these requested the omission of flowers, there were always some sent, and the omit requests, therefore, simply reduced the number sent. The fact remains, however, that the notices have left an impression in the minds of many people. If the idea is socially acceptable and widely 64 fl‘- 1. 0.1 -I ”LII : ..\.. All. 2.31.13’.l , . g o 5 practiced in such cities as New York and Chicago and by those in prominent position, then, in the minds of the general public, it eventually becomes the "thing to do". B. REPORTS FROM 36 CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA From the reports recorded in Tables 29 through 38, it is obvious that the extent and seriousness of the "Please Omit" problem varies con- siderably from city to city. Only the cities of Boise, Idaho, and Knoxville, Tennessee reported no "Please Omit" requests during the entire 4-week period. The cities of Baltimore, Maryland; Chicago, Illinois; Corvallis, Oregon; Kansas City, Missouri; Minneapolis, Minnesota; New York City; Norfolk, Virginia; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Spokane, Washington; St. Louis, Missouri; St. Paul, Minnesota; and Vancouver, British Columbia, all re- ported 5. 0 per cent or more of the obituaries as requesting "Please Omit". The percentages in these cities varied from 5. O for Kansas City to 18. 1 for Minneapolis. The available records indicate that the problem is more serious generally in the East and mid-West than in other parts of the country, although the unequal distribution of the cities sampled makes it dangerous to arrive at such a conclusion. Three Canadian cities studied were Ottawa, Toronto, and Vancouver. The problem is apparently most serious in Vancouver, where 12. 8 per cent of the obituaries carried "Please Omit" during the 28-day period. In Toronto and Ottawa the problem appears to be of little importance. As in the "Please Omit" requests, wide variations are found in the percentage suggesting memorials. In the cities of Boise, Idaho; Knoxville, Tennessee; Lexington, Kentucky; Montgomery, Alabama; and Raleigh, North Carolina, none of the "Please Omit" requests carried requests for dona- tions to memorial funds. In many wide-spread cities, however, the per- centage of "Please Omits" in which solicitations were made in lieu of flowers is much higher than the average of 52. 2 per cent obtained for the first ten months of 1957 for New York City. From the information at hand, it is impossible to explain the reason for the variations from city to city. The fact that the "Please Omit" prac- tice appears to have originated in New York City many years ago could mean that the practice is better known and more widely accepted in the East than in other parts of the country. In cities where the incidence is low, much of the credit can no doubt go to local florists who have cooper- ated to combat "Please Omit" either in the way of constructive funeral flower advertising, or by coordinated effort with funeral directors, news- papers, churches, and charitable organizations. 66 W1..,...a.......z{, 3.1.4131-.. -11.... 3‘1. FIJI! o .!<\ 67 CONCLUSIONS (1) There has been a very significant upward trend in the incidence of requests for the omission of flowers in the obituary notices in New York and Chicago through the period 1954 to 1957. (2) There has also been a very marked increase in both New York and Chicago in the proportion of "Please Omit“ requests which solicit mem- orials in lieu of flowers. (3) The "Please Omit F lowers" problem varies widely from city to city in the United States and Canada. In some cities the practice is almost unknown and of little concern. In some cities the proportion of total death notices containing requests for the omission of flowers considerably ex- ceeds the 1957 (ten months) averages of 12. 0 per cent in New York, and 9. 1 per cent in Chicago. That the "Please Omit" problem is an old and established practice-- almost as old as the florist industry as we know it today--must be acknow- ledged," and it would appear to be a problem that the florist industry can never hope to completely eradicate. This paper has shown that a relation- ship does exist between the rising number of "Please Omit" requests and the rapidly increasing number of solicitations for memorials. Because a larger and larger proportion of the "Please Omit" requests contain A 8.1 4,8,1... 68 memorial solicitations the industry must direct its efforts toward the dis- couragement of the promotion of such solicitations by the funds and charities involved. The growth of the idea that this practice is socially acceptable and is the "thing to do" can in large part be attributed to the growing use of the idea by prominent people who do much to set the social standards for a city or community. The threat today to the florist industry lies not so much in an anti- cipated growth of the use of the phrase "Please Omit F lowers" but rather in the increased use of solicitations for donations to memorials, funds and charities in lieu of flowers. 69 BIBLIOGRAPHY Crane, Dr. George W. (no date) Life's graduation. Phamphlet published by the Florist Information Council. Esslinger, Emil C. (1957) From personal correspondence to Paul R. Krone, September 18. Florist Information Council (1952) Public opinion survey. November and December. Grant Advertising, Inc. (1950-51) Preliminary report on "Please Omit Flowers" in obituary notices. January. (1951) Funeral director survey, 11 cities, March. (1951) Public opinion survey on "Please Omit Flowers" 11 cities, March 26. Habenstein, Robert W., and Wm. M. Lamers (1955) The History of Amer- ican Funeral Directing. Bulfin Printers, Inc., Milwaukee, Wis. pp. 418-422. Harris, Dr. Frederick Brown (no date) Spires of the spirit. Pamphlet from the Washington Sunday Star. Hixon, Allen ‘W. (1956) Let's take inventory of ourselves. Florist Exchange and Horticultural Trade World, October 20. Kates, Albert R. (1957) Maintaining our nation's sentiment for the dead. American Cemetery, April, p. 35. Marshall, Catherine (1957) To Live Again. McGraw-Hill Publishing Co. , p. 81. McMullen, Wm. (1957) From personal correspondence to Paul R. Krone. September 19. Puckle, Bertram S. (1926) Funeral Customs, Their Origin and Development. Frederick A. Stokes Company, New York, p. 172. 70 Scott, Senator W. Kerr (1956) From an address before the Senator‘s Breakfast Group, Washington, D. C. Shaner, Joseph E. (1957) Frompersonal correspondence to Paul R. Krone, September 12. Shaw, Gladys (1957) From personal correspondence to Paul R. Krone. Trotter, Warren K. (1955) Problems in Marketing Florist Crops, Department of Agricultural Economics, Cornell University. Werstler, William J. Jr. (1957) From personal correspondence to Paul R. Krone, October 15. Williams, Perry S. (1957) From personal correspondence to Paul R. Krone, September 25. Whitman, Harold (1956) Living memorials instead of flowers. Readers Digest, October. 71 APPENDIX A September 10, 1957 We are attempting to gather data for the Florist Information Com- mittee of the Society of American Florists on the "Please Omit" situation throughout the country, and to determine the current trend so that we can be guided in our efforts to combat this serious problem confronting the florist industry today. Would you be willing to provide us, beginning October Ist, with the information suggested in the attached form in order that we may analyse the situation in your area? Yes No. If there is a Florists‘ organization or Allied functioning in your area to whom this request should be assigned, please list here the name and address of that person. Name Addres s If you are able and willing to provide us with the "P. O. " information beginning October 1, 1957, we would suggest recording the figures on a form similar to the one enclosed. We'll be glad to supply you with additional forms. Thank you for your cooperation. Yours very truly, PAUL R. KRONE Chairman, Florists Information Committee Society of American Florists 72 miHaaHHOH 8:5 33TH Hanoi .8280 Hoonom +14 coaseo HSHdm OI nonowwom 378:0 .8 2an Ho nchH 2.2.8822 @8350 86302 waflmomwom on 3636a 589 Ho H3552 waHumosHuom H3532 680 HonEsz H38. sets we x663 Humandmsoz Ho oEmZv 3.530 mm manage 5,5 oszmnomm $2.52 55.8 9.2 m 502mm“; ,... ”Pitt. 4 ,1 . .. 3.11.01. Appendix C E