1.	Once someone gets on your good side, they’re on a pedestal – that is, can do no wrong. True or false? Answer: False. Take Potlatch, the Minnesota-based paper company, for instance. I’ve taken the firm to task for (1) its support of style over substance in annual reports and (2) what I consider the terribly flawed survey on its behalf by Yankelovich Partners. Flawed not only in its responses—which certainly differ dramatically from findings in my 14th annual Producer Poll—but in the ambiguous way questions were posed. Imagine my surprise when I discovered, after the February 2000 issue went to press, that several years back I cooperated in Potlatch’s brilliant promotional piece, "Open/Come In," featuring an approved-by-me spread of yours truly as Sid Vicious! Complete with nose ring, spiked hair and broken teeth. Oh, yes, and a dog collar. Is that a case of biting the hand that feeds you, or what? (If you’ll pardon the pun. Besides, Potlatch didn’t pay me for my cooperation in its brochure. Only recompense I extracted was the original Sid Vicious artwork the company printed from.)
	2.	You say the prime purpose of an annual report cover is to convert recipient to reader. True or false? Answer: Most definitely, true. That’s what I say, and that’s what I believe. If the cover doesn’t say "Open me, read me," it has failed its most basic task. In my February newsletter, Issue No. 198, Courier Corp.’s report is hailed for its "simple, innovative, intriguing" cover. The cover is clean, open and inviting, contains, atop a computerized graphic of a stack of books, the words "Bought a book lately?"
	3.	Not only do you oppose the summary report, but multi-part annuals as well as the Form 10-K. True or false? Answer: True. What’s more, among 1999 reports, we’re beginning to monitor those dirty birds who fail to produce a full-bodied report and, moreover, to identify the product’s shortcomings on the report cover. We refer to it as NSI—"not so identified." It costs companies engaging in such skullduggery two points. That’s on top of the two-point penalty if a report is a summary, rather than the real thing. Among early-arriving 1999 reports, so far only 11 reports have taken one of those down-and-dirty paths—that is, their abbreviated documents were labeled "NSI" by us.
	4.	What it takes to make your Top 10 list is pretty much a trade secret. True or false? Answer: False. If you’ll check Pg. 3 of my February issue, you’ll see a column-long revelation of what the 10 best have in common; i.e., what positive elements they’re likely to contain.
	5.	While content is terribly important to your way of thinking, what really lights your fire is the well-designed, progressively presented report. True or false. Answer: Try telling that to Chicago-based Diamond Technology Partners. I viewed its 1999 report as "Weird, weird, weird" as well as a "study in strangeness." It’s so avant-garde, it doubtless will walk off with countless awards in design competitions sponsored by the likes of Potlatch, or in the Mead Show, darling of with-it (and, to me, far-out) designers. I and the equally sane graphic designers whose work I applaud—we think a work like Diamond Tech’s is a disgrace, pure and simple. And either, or both, the client and the designers are equally unknowing, unfocused. Clearly, the answer is "false."