GBA 300- Communication Audit Chancellor Final Revision

Chancellor Funeral Home
2576 Hwy 49 South
Florence, MS 39073
(601)845-4449
mrandmrshorton1@gmail.com
Amanda Earnhardt
Jessica Knight
November 29, 2016

Table of Contents
Executive Summary………………………………………………………. 1
Introduction………………………………………………………………..1
Audit Methods……....……………………………………………………..2
Audit Findings……………………………………………………………..3
Audit Recommandations…………………………………………………..6
Analysis of Recommendations…………………………………………….6
Conclusion………………………………………………………………....7
Appendix A: Original Document……………………………….………….8
Appendix B: Revised Document…………………………………………..10
Appendix C: Writer Interview……………………………………………..12
Appendix D: Reader Interviews…………………………………………...13
Appendix E: Reader Demographics……...……..…………………………49

1
Executive Summary
An audit of two documents for Chancellor Funeral Home was conducted. The documents
examined and revised were a price list overview and a things to remember sheet. These items are
used frequently by the funeral home to inform their customers of how the pricing structure is laid
out and important information regarding the service and final arrangements for their loved one.
Our objective was to enhance both documents to reflect not only the caring atmosphere that
Chancellor provides but to ensure that the information they wanted to convey was easy to
understand for their customer. To begin the audit, a member of the team spoke with Freddye
Horton, a point of contact from Chancellor to discuss which documents they felt needed revision.
Once the group obtained the documents, we analyzed them and determined improvements
needed to be made in the following areas.
 Grammar
 Spelling
 Content reorganization
 Phrasing revision
Our next step was to compile a group of twelve volunteers to review the documents and then rate
them on five different categories using a numbering scale ranging from 0 being very poorly done
to 5 being very well executed. The readers were also asked to rate the document using a plus and
minus which was used to determine how the document made them feel. A plus (+) sign indicated
that the reader liked the content and felt no revision was necessary. A minus (-) sign indicated
that the reader felt changes needed to be made. Once the feedback and ratings were received,
confirming our original thoughts on changes that needed to be made to the document, revisions
were performed.
Introduction
Background
Chancellor Funeral Home is a family owned and operated funeral home and perpetual care
cemetery. They have locations in Byram and Florence, Mississippi. Bill and Sandra Chancellor
opened their doors in 2002 and have been providing funeral and perpetual care needs for local
citizens ever since. The Chancellors’ live by the principle that ‘Family Comes First’ and strive to
provide exemplary customer service to those during their time of need.
Beginning
To start the auditing process, one of our group members spoke with Freddye Horton, a funeral
director at Chancellor Funeral home. After gaining an understanding of which documents would
be the most beneficial to review, we were given a price list explanation document and a
document entitled; ‘Things to Remember’ which entailed important information regarding what
family members needed to provide and do for the funeral service. The main objective of both of

2
the documents is to give a clear and concise understanding of the protocols and what to expect at
Chancellor while being sensitive to family member during such a difficult time.
A group evaluation and discussion was conducted and we determined what needed to be
improved upon. It was important for our group to maintain the integrity and overall messaging of
the original document but felt we could enhance on what Chancellor had already done in the
following ways;
 Spelling
 Grammar
 Content reorganization
 Phrasing revision
Our group felt that making these adjustments to the documents would not only improve the
overall reader experience but further support the creditability and thoughtfulness that the
Chancellor family has for their customers.
Audit Methods
Document Selection
Our group is comprised of two students from The University of Alabama during fall semester
2016. We were assigned to perform a communication audit of the business of our choosing with
approval from our professor. After discussing factors that would determine the business we
would partner with we approached Chancellor Funeral Home in Florence, MS. One of the group
members felt Chancellor would be a good match and was familiar with the organization. A
meeting with Freddye Horton, a funeral director for Chancellor, confirmed her agreement to
participate. Mrs. Horton felt it was a great opportunity to get a different perspective on some of
the documents that she uses frequently. It was important to her that the customer felt confident in
what Chancellor Funeral Home has to offer and that they communicate in a kind and effective
way.
Writer Interview
Once decisions were made by the group as to what need to be changed in our minds on the
document, a list of questions were drafted. There were questions that were specifically generated
for the writer of the document with a goal of gaining a comprehensive understanding as to what
the organization is trying to communicate and the thought process behind creating the
documents. After the questions were formed, a local group member then conducted the interview
with Freddye Horton and recorded her feedback.
Reader Interviews
Our group carefully selected twelve volunteers to look over our documents, rated them on a zero
to five scale in selected categories, and provided feedback via interview. The readers were from
various backgrounds with diverse work experience and differing experience with funeral services
(See Appendix E-Reader Demographics). The reader questions were created for our targeted

3
group of readers to obtain feedback on both documents. Additionally, we sought feedback of an
unbiased first-time reader to align with our initial team analysis. Once the reader read through
the document, they were instructed to rate the following categories on a scale of 0 to 5; quality,
effectiveness, organization, comprehension and essential information. A score of zero would
infer a poorly written document and five inferring that it was executed well. The interview
questions further supported the categories scored by asking questions pertaining to content,
organization and overall impression of the documents. The reader interviews provided excellent
information for our group and contributed greatly to the individual analysis we had already
conducted.
Audit Findings
Our audit team found several improvements that could be made for each document. The overall
consensus of what needed to be altered were; spelling, grammar, flow reorganization, reformat
layout and more concise wording. The two documents are used by Chancellor funeral home
frequently and need to be able to communicate to the customer what they should prepare for
regarding the financial and service arrangements for their loved one.
In the “Things to Remember” document the readers felt that the overall information was good
and covered essential information needed but that it was rather wordy and was not reader
friendly. Several readers commented that bullet points and using more concise wording would
improve the document. The tone in this document was not a main concern to readers per review
of interview comments and ratings.
In the “Price List” document, readers seemed to be concerned with the tone and wording. The
organization seemed to be effective and essential information was covered. Some readers made
comments wanting explanation of certain terms used such as “clergy” and “DD-214”. The
grammatical and spelling errors were more apparent in this document than the ‘Things to
Remember’ document. There were also not many comments regarding the flow, the placement of
information was appropriate. The improvement of tone, wording, grammatical and spelling
errors will allow this document to be better received by future readers.
Figure 1 illustrates the readers’ feelings concerning improvement of the document in 5 areas:
quality, effectiveness, organization, comprehension, and essential information. It uses a 0-5rating
scale (0= needs most improvement and 5= needs the least improvement) for importance and
understanding of the document.

4
Figure 1a. Readers’rating areas needing improvement based on importance.
Figure 1a illustrates areas that readers felt needed improvement within the parameters of our five
areas that were grading on a 0-5 scale. A score of zero meant that drastic revision was needed
and a score of five meant that no revision was necessary. This bar chart is in reference to the
‘General Price List’ document. The readers felt confident in the level of comprehension
therefore, that area needed the least amount of revision. Whereas the area in which the readers
felt least confident and a large amount of revision was necessary was in quality and organization.
Figure 1b. Readers rating areas needing improvement based on importance
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
QUALITY
EFFECTIVENESS
ORGANIZATION
COMPREHENSION
ESSENTIAL INFO
Rating Areas of Improvement-
General Price List
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
QUALITY
EFFECTIVENESS
ORGANIZATION
COMPREHENSION
ESSENTIAL INFO
Rating Areas of Improvement-Things
to Remember

5
Figure 1b illustrates areas that readers felt needed improvement in reference to the ‘Things to
Remember’ document. These areas were determined using our parameters for categories of
improvement as well as using a predetermined 0-5 rating scale. A score of zero means that the
document needed drastic improvement in that specific category. A score of five would determine
that the readers felt no improvement was needed in that area. The readers felt confident in the
category of comprehension with an average score of four. The areas that readers felt needed the
most improvement was quality with a score of two.
Figure 2. Reader suggestions for document improvement.
As seen in figure 2, readers noticed similar inconsistencies and suggested changes similar to
those of the group. Changes that the readers felt needed to be made were; adding bullet points,
add concise wording, add consistency and change tone. Yet, they differed from the team in the
fact that they overwhelmingly believed the wording was too much and needed to be stated
differently.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Add Bulled List More Concise More Consistent Change Tone
NumberofReaders
Reader Suggestions for DocumentImprovement
Number of Readers

6
Audit Recommendations
Our group believes a more organized and reader friendly list would be less complicated when
communicating with the customer, resulting in greater percentage of customer satisfaction. By
sectioning off the fields and adding bulleted lists, the Funeral Director would provide fresh
clarity for the readers, as well as adding a warmer introduction and a lighter tone to the text.
Additionally, the text should be arranged for easier access to the information.
The following is a complete list of out group’s suggestions for improvements:
 Add bulleted lists in sections for the ‘Things to Remember’ document.
 Move the first two sentences above the General Price List sign.
 Provide better wording for communication in both documents
 Fix grammatical and spelling errors in both documents
Furthermore, the reader was asked to offer solutions for improvement of the document or areas
they felt could be omitted completely. Figure 2 identifies our readers’ suggestions for improving
the two documents.
Analysis of Recommendations
The suggestions and revised document will give the writer a fresh look into the construction and
readability of the current documents, as well as facilitate changes which could improve its
current effectiveness.
We described how our suggestions could improve the lists:
 Reduce the possibility for miscommunication
 Ensure the letter is concise without being too harsh
 Increase sales
 Better guide customers though the funeral process

7
Conclusion
The purpose of this report is to present suggestions and revisions to Mrs. Horton that would help
improve the effectiveness of communication through the lists. It is the group’s belief that by
revising these lists, per our suggestions, sales will increase and confusion will be reduced.
Furthermore, it should diminish the need for secondary communication with grieving families, as
the document is intended to help the family gain a better understanding of how to prepare for a
funeral service.
After interviewing Mrs. Horton and having twelve readers review the document, it became clear
there was a need to revise the document in such a way that would allow a grieving family to have
a clearer understanding of how to complete the funeral process. Although most readers felt the
information was complete, they did not believe the document was consistent or organized
effectively. Most of the readers felt the Things to Remember part of the document was confusing
and/or inappropriate and should be combined with another section or eliminated altogether.
Furthermore, they believed adding a list to clearly define the process was needed to improve the
effectiveness of the letter.
Using the readers’ suggestions and the group’s own recommendations, the goal was made to
revise the document in such a way as to make the steps in the process clearer and improve the
overall consistency of the document. After compiling the data, the group came to the conclusion
that adding three bulleted lists, as well as combining and shortening the document, was the best
way to improve the effectiveness of the letter.
Our audit group would like to thank Chancellor Funeral Home and specifically Mrs. Horton, for
participating in this communication audit. The hope is that the recommendations will benefit and
strengthen the Funeral Home’s communication and sales process. Also, it is the group’s belief
that by revising the lists, sales will increase and the need for further communication regarding
clarification with grieving families will decrease.

8
Appendix A- Original Documents

9
Appendix A- Original Documents

10
Appendix B- Revised Documents

11
Appendix B- Revised Documents

12
Appendix C- Writer Interview
1. What is the purpose of this document?
The purposeof this document is to inform the customer of sensitive payment
information. Also, to help our customers remember important information
regarding their loved one's arrangements.
2. Who is this document intended for?
The document is primarily intended for customers with a loved one who has
recently passed away.
3. Why is this document being reviewed?
This document is being reviewed for the purposeof bettering our
communication with the customer. Funeral arrangements can be a sensitive
topic for many individuals, and we want to be certain that we are
communicating in the bestway possible.
4. What, in a single sentence, is the writer’s bottom-line?
To inform the customer of Chancellor’s funeral services
5. What would you like from this audit?
I would like to know how to improve our communication with our
customers. Our customers are important to me and their view of our
company is important to me

13
Appendix D- Reader Interviews
Reader A

15
Reader A Questionnaire
1. Does the reader comprehend the information in document?
Yes, but was hard to follow.
2. Does the reader feel the layout of the document is acceptable? If not, why?
The layout could be split up for easier reading on the Things to Remember document.
3. Does the reader feel that the document is visually appealing?
No, it is bland with hardly any visuals.
4. Does the reader feel that the document conveys creditability of the Chancellor Funeral
Home?
Yes, because it gives detailed information, but there were many errors in the documents that
discredit the business competence.
5. Is the document sensitive to the needs of the customer reading it?
Yes
Numerical Rating System- Please rate the document on a scale of0-5 (0 being very poorly done and
5 being exceptional) regarding the following categories.
Document 1 (‘General Price List’)-
 Quality- 1
 Effectiveness- 3
 Organization- 2
 Comprehension- 4
 Essential information- 3
Document 2 (‘Things to Remember’)-
 Quality- 2
 Organization- 2
 Essential Information- 3

18
Reader B Questionnaire
Yes, the information given was fairly clear.
The layout felt squished together and crammed with endless information.
No, but the reader was not sure if that was the purpose.
Home?
Yes, they clearly know what they are talking about, but the information is overwhelming.
No
 Quality- 3
 Organization- 3
 Quality- 1
 Organization- 1

21
Reader C Questionnaire
Yes, plenty of information.
The General Price List was okay, but the Things to Remember Document was not.
No, it is just a bunch of black words on white paper.
Home?
No, because the documents look rushed and not very well thought out.
Yes
 Quality- 4
 Organization- 2
 Quality- 1
 Organization- 2

24
Reader D Questionnaire
Yes, the information could be very helpful.
The layout was okay, it just needed some separation.
No
Home?
Yes, the detailed information shows credibility.
Yes
 Quality- 4
 Organization- 2
 Quality- 2
 Organization- 4

27
Reader E Questionnaire
Yes, it is put simply so anyone can understand.
The layout seems not very well thought out.
No, it is simple.
Home?
Yes, but the wording was off and distracted from the message.
Yes
 Quality- 1
 Organization- 4
 Quality- 1
 Organization- 1

30
Reader F Questionnaire
Most of it yes, but some of it was not explained well.
The layout was unacceptable; it shows a lack of professionalism.
No
Home?
No, the writing is not very professional and has a harsh undertone.
Yes
 Quality- 1
 Organization- 1
 Quality- 2
 Organization- 4

33
Reader G Questionnaire
Yes, but it was very brief.
The general price list was titled incorrectly and therefore was misleading. The layout was also
very choppy.
No, since it is black and white and very wordy it is not easy to focus on the information
displayed.
Home?
Yes, it seems to cover many of the items that the family needs to do for the deceased.
Yes
 Quality- 1
 Organization- 1
 Quality- 2
 Organization- 4

36
Reader H Questionnaire
Yes, lots of great info presented
2. Does the reader feel the layout of the document is acceptable?
Things to Remember could be less cluttered.
Very plain and dull
Home?
Yes, although not clear on first doc and relevance
Yes
 Quality- 1
 Organization- 1
 Quality- 3
 Organization- 4

39
Reader I Questionnaire
Yes, easy to understand
Very jumbled wording, perhaps try bullet points on ‘Things to Remember’ document.
Yes, for the type of document
Home?
Yes
Yes
Numerical Rating System- Please rate the document on a scale of 0-5 (0 being very poorly
done and 5 being exceptional) regarding the following categories.
 Quality- 3
 Organization- 3
 Quality- 2
 Organization- 2

42
Reader J Questionnaire
Yes, wordy but not hard to understand
It could be improved upon
It is somewhat bland but typical for this type of document
Home?
Yes
Yes
 Quality- 3
 Organization- 2
 Quality- 3
 Organization- 4

45
Reader K Questionnaire
Yes, except not clear on location of price list.
Yes
The reader feels it is dull, but that may be what funeral home wants.
Home?
Yes, they are well organized and seem to care as they use the word “loved one” frequently
Yes, very much so.
 Quality- 2
 Organization- 2
 Quality- 3
 Organization- 3

48
Reader L Questionnaire
Yes, but some of the phrasing is a bit rough.
Things to Remember was too jumbled but the General Price List had a nice layout.
It is alright, could be improved.
Home?
Yes, they seem thoughtful and prepared.
Yes, some of the phrasing could be improved, but overall it is ok.
 Quality- 3
 Organization- 4
 Quality- 3
 Organization- 2

49
Appendix E- Reader Demographics
Reader Sex Age Education Level
# of
Funeral
Experience
Occupation
A Male 30 Bachelor’s Degree 0 Marketing Assistant
B Female 56 Some College 2 Special Needs Caretaker
C Female 65 Some College 3 Retired
D Male 53 Doctorate Degree 2 Executive Director
E Female 25 Bachelor’s Degree 0 Teacher
F Female 27 Associate’s Degree 1 Sales Associate
G Male 33 Bachelor’s Degree 0 Consultant
H Male 27 Master’s Degree 0 Athletic Trainer
I Female 26 Bachelor’s Degree 1 Sales Associate
J Female 54 Some College 15 Director
K Male 68 Bachelor’s Degree 2 Retired
L Female 35 Bachelor’s Degree 3 Police Officer

GBA 300- Communication Audit Chancellor Final Revision

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (6)

Ähnlich wie GBA 300- Communication Audit Chancellor Final Revision

Ähnlich wie GBA 300- Communication Audit Chancellor Final Revision (20)

GBA 300- Communication Audit Chancellor Final Revision