1.	Once a report gets on your bad side—its producers, at least—there's absolutely no chance of the report ever seeing light. True or false? Answer: False. That's the excuse used by those whose reports do poorly in my evaluation—and especially those to appear on the list of world's worst in Chief Executive during the last 16 years. Try convincing Colgate-Palmolive of that. Their report was named to the 10-worst list a decade ago. Yet, its 1998 edition came terribly close to anchoring this year's list, its score of 121 points only three away from 10th place.
	2.	The word is, you suck up to producers until they're gone, until they depart their jobs for whatever reason, then can't remember their names, don't take their phone calls. True or false? Answer: False. If it were true, I'd be crestfallen, devastated at such insincerity. One indication of the proof of my contention: On Pg. 1 of the December issue—No. 196—of my newsletter I mourn departure of Debbie Dougherty from Eastman Chemical. During her watch, Eastman was a strong candidate for world's best. Minute she left, the report tanked. Frankly, it's becoming an embarrassment, and I hear it'll get even worse.
	3.	You strongly dislike the CEO interview; in fact, you've labeled it a massive waste of space? True or false? Answer: On the contrary, I encourage companies to break up an unusually long shareholder letter—anything over the year-after-year worldwide average of three pages—into a far-more- readable CEO interview. Several during the year past (1998 annuals) shone, not least that in the Knight-Ridder report, containing a record 19 responses—by CEO Tony Ridder and several senior vice presidents—to questions, innovatively presented.
	4.	If you're so sincere, if you truly give a hoot about "the common man," as you call company employees, then why do you do nothing to discourage companies from ignoring them, from treating them as nothing more than cannon fodder? Answer: Not only do I hold up to scorn all who fail to identify individual employees, just as all company top brass is identified—not only that, but I've tightened the requirements. From now on, starting with the 1999 crop of reports, we'll be monitoring not only that employees/workers are pictured, but that they're fully identified. As well they should be. We'll be citing, in my newsletter and online, those who thus indicate their sincerity—or lack thereof.
	5.	Years back, you had a citation whereby you zinged CEOs who allowed loads of pictures of themselves to appear in their annual. But you've long since discontinued that practice, probably to curry favor with bosses. True or false? Answer: False, again—on all counts. In fact, on Pg. 5 of the December issue of my newsletter I've singled out Sweden's Saab for permitting eight vainglorious pictures of its chief executive to appear in its annual report. He thus becomes the latest CEO to walk off with my negative SCRAMMS citation—which, in case you wondered, is an acronym for Sid Cato Rails Against the Mirror, Mirror Syndrome. You know, "Who's fairest of us all? You are, boss, you are!"