1.	You've been quoted as saying the 2000 crop of annual reports is "on target to be the worst in history." True or false? Answer: True, sad to say. Early-arriving 2000s average a 2% Cato Positive Index, the lowest since 0.9% at year's-end among 1994 reports. Highest, in the 18 years I've been monitoring the world's reports: 14% among 1997s.
	2.	You say most corporate executives would rather walk barefoot on hot coals than produce a revelatory annual report. True or false? Answer: True, I'm convinced, after a lifetime as a corporate officer and consultant to companies worldwide. Think about it: Most CEOs have little or no experience in the public arena. For them, it's second nature to withhold information, to question the motives of journalists seeking interviews, for instance. I'm convinced devious financial types play on this personality trait—at the expense of full corporate disclosure. Their credo, I swear: "When in doubt, obfuscate!"
	3.	You believe growing popularity of the Internet is a reason corporations are cutting back on their print report to shareholders. True or false? Answer: Most assuredly. After years of a 1.9 ratio—meaning, nearly two copies printed for each shareholder, as a rule of thumb—that ratio has declined to 1.2, probably because companies now are able to redirect inquiries to their website. What's more, existence of the Internet gives executives an out. Instead of disclosing more in print, those in the corner office can say, "Let's confine our disclosure efforts to our website. Nobody reads annuals anymore, anyway." Which is totally untrue, of course, as Potlatch Paper Co. surveys (www.potlatchpaper.com/arshow/arshow2000/AR2000.html) clearly indicate. But it does provide the boss with an excuse. (Professional communicators know there are only so many arguments one can engage in before he or she is…let's say, disengaged.)
	4.	Now companies are going so far as to debate providing employees with a copy of the print version of the annual report. True or false? Answer: True, although this probably isn't a new argument. Regardless, two companies have shared with me the ongoing debate, essentially emanating with the corporate secretary, usually an attorney, who'd love to show a cost-cutting orientation to more-senior management. It's the "Let them eat cake" approach to employee communications: "If the employees really, truly care, they can always read the report online." My experience indicates few companies have successfully bridged the gap between print and electronic; in other words, few post even a decent online annual report. And when it's there, like as not it's virtually impossible to find. (Before I forget it, I'm still awaiting the year-ago Time Warner report, which the company vowed, online, to send me.)
	5.	You call them "corporate phonies." True or false? (What's that mean, exactly?) Answer: True. Picture employees in your annual report and fail to identify them (companies of course identify every single executive) and I'm convinced you've clearly called your sincerity into question. A phrase I use is that "emotion is a valid indicator." Meaning: If it feels good—if one peruses an annual report and comes away with a warm reaction—it's like-as-not a good, honest company. That's my feeling. If employees (if the company even bothers to picture them) aren't identified, I question whether this is someone I'd want to play with my investment dollars. Wal-Mart is a classic example. Its television commercials are all warm and fuzzy, featuring an outpouring of emotion toward all the customers by prized "associates." Then you check out its annual report and learn the company doesn't bother identifying all those supposedly invaluable associates by name. That, to me, indicates they're seen as nothing but "cannon fodder." Expendable. Unlike the big boys at the top, of course.