1.	Annual reports have improved immensely over the years, thanks to you. True or false? Answer: False, I'm afraid. While twice so many, percentage-wise, did well with their 1999 reports vs. five years earlier (6% of '94s vs. 12% of '99s), essentially the same number scored at least 100 points year to year. Forty-three achieved "world-class" status this time, only one more than a year earlier.
	2.	All the 1999 reports to make your world-class list are from the U.S. True or false? Answer: False. Two reports produced by companies based in Mexico did well—CEMEX with 106 points, Grupo Vitro with 102. In addition, Japan's TDK had a qualifying 100 points. And two from Canada performed admirably: Aliant (formerly Bruncor) with 108 points, Cameco with a score of 101.
	3.	While you're big on themes, few annuals actually contain one. True or false? Answer: False. More than seven of 10 annuals currently feature themes, the majority of them proclaimed on the cover. Also, three of four were sufficiently strongly supported, to my way of thinking.
	4.	Face it: Well-written annuals are a fluke. True or false? Answer: Untrue. Take Southern Co., for instance. Mike Klodnicki, one of the truly stellar performers in the industry, for the second year in a row takes credit for the world's most-readable report. Diversified Fortune Brands likewise has made the list of most-readable annuals more than once. So, too, Wisconsin-based Manitowoc.
	5.	Few if any design firms specializing in annual reports exhibit any real creativity, have the courage (in other words) to fight for quality. True or false? Answer: False, certainly, in the case of Manhattan-based RKC! (Robinson Kurtin Communications), Chicago's Meta-4 - and, especially, New York's Inc Design. The client of course in the final analysis makes or breaks a report's appearance, too often mucking things up by addition of countless elements. But based on what I'm seeing, Inc Design, for example, is succeeding against all odds, as highlighted in my December newsletter, No. 208.