1.	In your experience, companies may not have their act completely together with the print version of the annual report, but they seem to have grasped quickly what's required for online posting. True or false? Answer: False. On the contrary, either some of them haven't thought through the process fully, or they have different standards than I. First off, know that I maintain there is no such entity as an annual report website. Also, some companies make it more difficult than necessary to locate the annual on the corporate website, laden with other material. If I have trouble navigating a firm's annual report area, then others must experience similar confusion and/or problems. This shouldn't be a game; make it easy for me to navigate your online annual report or—I'm outta here! (I'm the first to admit I have the attention span of a gnat.)
	2.	Reservations aside, you're satisfied that companies, here and abroad, for the most part are doing a pretty decent job in presenting information and data online, and in a timely manner. True or false? Answer: False again. I've come to the realization, over the months and years I've been accessing corporations' online annual reports, that there's an inherent drawback. It involves the medium—and the willingness of CEOs to play loose with the truth. Online, a CEO can shout to the heavens about how great he's doing—without, as in the print report, having the actual numbers at the ready to contrast with his (or, of course, her) pronouncements. Putting it another way: It's much easier for above-it-all corporate chieftains to gloss over things online than it is in print—to put distance between rhetoric and reality, you might say.
	3.	You pride yourself as being a resource for companies around the world. For instance, you sell your Theme Registry® as enabling corporations to avoid duplicating the theme of someone else, either "within your industry or geographic area." But, truthfully, isn't that just so much hogwash? Answer: Not to my way of thinking. Take the case of AT&T, a classic. In its 2000 annual report, its theme is the hackneyed "Creating value." For a measly $250, as I write in my May issue—No. 213—the company could have learned that others have used that very same theme, indicating a lack of originality if nothing else. During the last two years, an Ohio bank used "Creating value" as its theme, and a California financial firm did likewise. If I were AT&T, I would not be a happy camper.
	4.	Despite your protestations, you tend to show favoritism to those who sign up to attend your annual conference. True or false? Answer: Try telling that to Dana (or, for that matter, AT&T!). Dana's year-ago annual was sixth-best worldwide. It already has registered for Baltimore this fall, but its annual report is an also-ran, missing so many items that are not only important, but required in our judging, now in its 18th year. Also, try convincing one of the great guys in the business, Wells Fargo's executive VP, whose annual within seconds after receipt revealed some glaring oversights. A guy from Israel is talking about attending. I'm putting on my website, as a capsule critique, criticism of his report. Quoting from "The Music Man," "...but he doesn't know the territory."
	5.	When you "have it in" for a company—like BellSouth, the Atlanta-based telecom—it can do nothing right. True or false? Answer: False, I'd say. I lavish praise on design of its 2000 report, featuring "younger-than- springtime" models, male and female. Looks overall: great. But BellSouth neglected to warn the recipient that its print product isn't a complete, full-bodied annual report, a Cato no-no. It's very much incomplete, would be assessed as a summary report. Despite my reservations, it scored 86 points, if 14 distant from "world-class" status.
	6.	Don't most companies get tired of trying? Putting it another way, if they don't meet your high standards, after a few years they tire of the struggle and just do their own thing? True or false? Answer: False, though I see your point. Some strive mightily, get discouraged (I assume) after a few years, never to be heard from again. But there are exceptions—most recently, American Water Works. A decade ago, its treasurer submitted his report, which was better than some, but not so good as "the big boys'." After all these years, he finally has moved up to contention for 10-best status—and he now is the CEO! How's that for a success story? The report contains virtually everything except a glossary of terms. Not least: an 11-question interview with Jim Barr, "along with his full-bodied answers," as I wrote in my May newsletter.