Sid Cato -- Answers

(Answers for June 2000)

1. So, you’ve finally quit contending that CEOs actually play an active role in their annual reports. True or false?
Answer: Decidedly false. While at least one respondent to this year’s Producer Poll, my 15th annual, opined, concerning CEO involvement: "You must be kidding," the figures overall indicate CEOs increasingly play an active role in preparation of their key corporate communiqué. Nearly nine of 10 chief executives is described as "actively involved" in the process. What’s more, nearly three of five are said to have had a hand, at least, in writing the shareholder letter.

2. If your "International Annual Report Conference" is such hot stuff, why do you struggle even to get 75 attendees? It’s really not that big a deal. Admit it.
Answer: Wrong again. We limit attendance to 75 at the suggestion of one Baltimore attendee in 1993. Prior to that, we took as many as registered. In Baltimore, attendance was 90 and counting. "Too many," said one attendee. That’s when we put a lid on attendance. Which, by the way, is thisclose to being sold out—four months in advance of the event. With attendees coming from around the world—from South Africa to Australia and the Czech Republic. And, get this: Most attendees have attended earlier Cato conferences! So there.

3. You play favorites—for instance, once a graphic designer is on your suck-up list, seldom if ever do you criticize him or her. True or false?
Answer: Try telling that to Houston-based Jerry Herring, one of whose body of work this year we found unattractive. Yet he has attended several Cato conferences, is signed up for San Francisco this fall. Also, back in March, we hailed the work of New York’s Nuforia on the magnificent Harcourt General report. Since then, Nuforia has taken knocks for its Metropolitan Life design—and, in my June issue, No. 202, for its work on the 3M report.

4. Once an annual report makes your "world’s best" list, it’s set for life. True or false?
Answer: Try telling that to BellSouth. Its producer at the time attended my New Orleans conference in 1992, bought me a drink afterward. Yet, his report has failed to scale the heights I would have anticipated. Indeed, it made this year’s list of the three dozen bad actors—companies whose reports aren’t complete, yet who do not so advise the recipient on the cover. That to me is dirty pool. Same with Eastman Chemical, destined (I thought) for No. 1. Instead, currently, it’s beneath contempt.

5. Face it: The down-and-dirty look in annual reports is in. True or false?
Answer: False. That’s what some would-be seers would have you believe. The truth is that of the reports I see from around the world, the bad guys are in the minority. I’m guessing that we’ll have more companies make my "world-class" list (scoring at least 100 of a potential 135 points) this year than ever before. At an early stage of the evaluation process, it’s already approaching three dozen. As always, the bad guys, the trouble-makers, get the attention.

Return to June 2000 quiz page

Test your knowledge by taking previous monthly quizzes


	1.	So, you’ve finally quit contending that CEOs actually play an active role in their annual reports. True or false? *Answer:* Decidedly false. While at least one respondent to this year’s Producer Poll, my 15th annual, opined, concerning CEO involvement: "You must be kidding," the figures overall indicate CEOs increasingly play an active role in preparation of their key corporate communiqué. Nearly nine of 10 chief executives is described as "actively involved" in the process. What’s more, nearly three of five are said to have had a hand, at least, in writing the shareholder letter.

	2.	If your "International Annual Report Conference" is such hot stuff, why do you struggle even to get 75 attendees? It’s really not that big a deal. Admit it. *Answer:* Wrong again. We limit attendance to 75 at the suggestion of one Baltimore attendee in 1993. Prior to that, we took as many as registered. In Baltimore, attendance was 90 and counting. "Too many," said one attendee. That’s when we put a lid on attendance. Which, by the way, is thisclose to being sold out—four months in advance of the event. With attendees coming from around the world—from South Africa to Australia and the Czech Republic. And, get this: Most attendees have attended earlier Cato conferences! So there.

	3.	You play favorites—for instance, once a graphic designer is on your suck-up list, seldom if ever do you criticize him or her. True or false? *Answer:* Try telling that to Houston-based Jerry Herring, one of whose body of work this year we found unattractive. Yet he has attended several Cato conferences, is signed up for San Francisco this fall. Also, back in March, we hailed the work of New York’s Nuforia on the magnificent Harcourt General report. Since then, Nuforia has taken knocks for its Metropolitan Life design—and, in my June issue, No. 202, for its work on the 3M report.

	4.	Once an annual report makes your "world’s best" list, it’s set for life. True or false? *Answer:* Try telling that to BellSouth. Its producer at the time attended my New Orleans conference in 1992, bought me a drink afterward. Yet, his report has failed to scale the heights I would have anticipated. Indeed, it made this year’s list of the three dozen bad actors—companies whose reports aren’t complete, yet who do not so advise the recipient on the cover. That to me is dirty pool. Same with Eastman Chemical, destined (I thought) for No. 1. Instead, currently, it’s beneath contempt.

	5.	Face it: The down-and-dirty look in annual reports is in. True or false? *Answer:* False. That’s what some would-be seers would have you believe. The truth is that of the reports I see from around the world, the bad guys are in the minority. I’m guessing that we’ll have more companies make my "world-class" list (scoring at least 100 of a potential 135 points) this year than ever before. At an early stage of the evaluation process, it’s already approaching three dozen. As always, the bad guys, the trouble-makers, get the attention.