1.	Though you pick what you call "world-class" annuals—those that meet your lofty standards—few actually are creative. True or false? Answer: That's pretty much correct, though notable exceptions exist. Not least: the year-after-year effort of Southern Co., a public utility based in Atlanta but with operations stretching as far as the former East Germany. I hail the Southern report on Page 1 of my October issue—No. 206 in a row—as "truly creative." That has been true for its most recent four years as well, if not longer.
	2.	Much as you wish it were to the contrary, the reality is few if any CEOs actually get involved in their annual report to shareholders. True or false? Answer: Not if you believe my 15th annual Producer Poll. One in four respondents chooses to remain anonymous, so one would assume that, certainly, their responses would be totally accurate. (Call me naïve, but I assume all are.) And respondents, anonymous or otherwise, say four of five chief executives are actively involved in preparation of the document, though little more than half (56 percent) actually write their own letter to shareholders, in whole or in part.
	3.	Your criteria—copyrighted since 1984—on what makes an effective annual report are being criticized as being outdated. True or false? Answer: True, to a degree. Some at my just-concluded International Annual Report Conference in San Francisco said I should factor in a company's online effort. That sounds easier than I think it will be—to factor in online annuals—but I'm at least considering the suggestion. (By the way: of the 75 attendees at San Francisco, 31—from AT&T to Knight Ridder to Phillips Petroleum—signed up, paid, for next fall!)
	4.	Companies that retain you, for a fee, to evaluate their annual report in depth—running more than 23,000 words, and more than 60 pages in length—do well in your competition. True or false? And if true, isn't that more than just a coincidence? Answer: That's false. Few do well. Yet, they pay me to tell them where improvement can be made. And whether they do well or poorly, their relationship with my company is fully disclosed—so the reader can factor in my bias, if any. (Online, for instance, all to make the "world-class" list by scoring at least 100 points—any commercial relationship with me or my company is disclosed. That a producer, say, has signed up to attend my annual conference, or previously attended one. St. Paul Companies had its critique fee refunded upon realizing its report would surely make the list of 10 best—free subscriptions were extended to several staffers, as well as attendance at my conference.)
	5.	In selecting the world's 10 best and 10 worst reports—especially the latter—each year for Chief Executive, there are "sacred cows" you aren't allowed to go near—such as General Electric and Berkshire Hathaway. Some you're obliged to name to the 10-best list, others you're admonished not to name to the list of world's worst. True or false? Answer: False. No sacred cows exist. The good ones, no matter what I think of or feel toward its producer, achieve top 10 status based on their category-by-category scoring, not on personality or clout. The 10 worst, "sacred cow" or no, make the list because of egregious behavior. I build a case against them; it's usually not just one thing. Bad (perhaps overblown) design, deceit, an abundance of photographs of the boss—that sort of thing. More than once, a member of Chief Executive's editorial advisory board made the list of world's worst. So, three years ago, did a trio of companies that retained me to critique their reports: Tenneco, Armstrong World Industries and SPX Corp. Texaco came dangerously close, but in the final analysis didn't quite warrant 10-worst status. What's more, I have named Berkshire Hathaway to the "worst" list, likewise have expressed my strong reservations concerning the GE report, Jack Welch's renown, management skills and personal charm notwithstanding.