1.	This begins your—what?—18th year of monitoring the world’s annual reports. Does anyone know for sure you actually use computer programs you say you invented? Isn’t it entirely possible you phony up the data year after year? True or false? Answer: False. Soon after I began—among 1982 annuals—I recall feeling the news media was being irresponsible in not verifying my claims—that is, that I evaluate annuals with computer programs I conceived and directed creation of. How did anyone know I wasn’t simply fabricating the numbers? But an investor relations magazine sent a reporter out to interview me. Over three days, she saw me at work.
	2.	When you proclaim how attractive, how much in demand your annual conference is, you claim to have attendees from all over the world. True or false? Can you provide some substantiation for your claims? Answer: That’s true—I do so claim. We’ve had visitors for years from Sweden—an executive with AB Volvo, who continues to attend. Years ago, a visitor from Japan attended. Julian Canny from Australia has been to more than one conference (Minneapolis in 1996, for sure), pledges to attend this fall. We have a reservation this time for a man from Israel, and South Africa’s Rob Gentle promises to be with us in Baltimore this fall. Also, a chap from Switzerland has inquired about attending, and others have come from the United Kingdom—from Reuters, for instance—several times. The U.K.'s Reg Pauffley signed for this fall—again.
	3.	Okay...but you traditionally have a hard time getting people to attend. True or false? Answer: Again, that’s false: Already, half the 75 spots (our limit) are spoken for—paid! Last fall, Addison’s Nancy Fuller, who was at my first conference in New York City in 1988, was with us in San Francisco. DTE Energy’s Lonnie Ross, who attended our first San Francisco conference—in 1989, when with Federal-Mogul—was at S.F. again. Signed up already for this fall is Wells Fargo’s Larry Haeg, who is based in the West Coast city. He was at our Baltimore conference in 1993. So they do come back for more.
	4.	You claim your criticism is constructive. True or false? Answer: True—at least, that’s my intention. In the January 2001 issue of my newsletter—No. 209—for example, I take to task Milwaukee-based Johnson Controls, whose report has many positives, and whose cover features a man and a woman. Both are gorgeous, both are African-Americans—and neither is identified. I question why the company would have gone that route—and I do criticize companies that picture employees but don’t identify them. Maybe Johnson Controls can explain why it took that course of action, and especially the logic for picturing two blacks, gorgeous as they may be.
	5.	You tend to favor Chicago-based companies. True or false? Answer: Though my newsletter was begun in the Windy City, and I lived in Chicagoland many decades, I’d have to insist that’s false. While Chicagoland is a focal point for fine annual report design and production, I criticize the likes of Walgreen Co. and Sara Lee (in my January newsletter) for failure to live up to expectations, to adhere to my criteria. Print quality is uniformly excellent, as in many other cities here and abroad, but what’s too often lacking is an independent pair of eyes to keep the project on target during the six-month (average) process. I’ve often said that any company to make my list of world’s worst—well, I’m thrilled to see a turnaround. One such: Colgate-Palmolive. Unisys is another. My goal is to see the quality of annuals improve.
	6.	You claim annuals produced by companies on a fiscal year basis tend to be less well done than annuals overall. True or false? Answer: True. My working hypothesis, based on years at this stand, is that companies on a fiscal year tend to do poorly in my competition, though of course that’s not always so. Not many ever make my list of world’s 10 best, though the Twin Cities’ Apogee was up there once, as I recall. I’m sure there were others over the years.