1.	Occasionally, you say nice things about annual reports that don't achieve what you call "world-class" status—but never by any major corporation, here or abroad. True or false? Answer: True—and false. I do from time to time single out "also-rans," as I call them. False that never is a major company among those praised. In the May issue of my newsletter, for instance, IBM is hailed on Pg. 1. As it has been previously.
	2.	You're for captioning graphs, but few if any companies have gotten on the bandwagon. True or false? Answer: Again, true and false. I'm indeed an advocate of making graphs self-explanatory, not requiring the reader to fathom, to probe the depths of management's intentions and/or accomplishments. Each year, about 85 of 100 companies worldwide run graphs in their annual reports. Of those, between one in five and one in four captions them fully for the scanners among us. That's not all that bad.
	3.	You're kidding when you talk about "a full-scale nude" being run in an annual report, on a "Playboy-like centerfold." Right? Answer: False. I'm not kidding. Reebok did that a decade ago, and Entertainment Tonight interviewed me about my reaction. Reebok hasn't gone that route again, but its 1998 report isn't honest, the CEO forthright. Things are at a low ebb for the company, but CEO Paul Fireman remains in denial.
	4.	Isn't it true you play favorites? Those who speak at your conference, for instance, are given a pass, no matter how awful their product? Answer: False. In my May issue, Cinergy is blasted—not only for producing a two-part report, but for making the main, appealing document run both ways—forward and, flipped, backward. And for the CEO being less than forthright about a 28% earnings falloff. But Cinergy's Mark Craft spoke at my annual conference last fall in Atlanta and did a superb job. What we're criticizing is his company's current annual report to shareholders, for better or for worse.
	5.	You play favorites—the same companies making your list of 10 best year after year. True or false? Answer: False. Take Quaker Oats. Its report was world's best in 1983, wasn't even received the following three years. This year it finally regained world-class status, though just barely—with 100 points. Yet, its report is marvelous from a design and content standpoint, year after year. And its producer, a vice president, spoke at my Minneapolis conference a few years back, also accompanied her then-boss, the VP, to my San Francisco conference a decade ago. That doesn't make my evaluation anything but impartial. I've often said I'd be delighted if Time Warner's report were world's best. Yet, three years running its document was named world's very worst by yours truly.