1.	It’s said you play favorites in selecting those to achieve "world-class status." Is that true, or false? Answer: I hope not. "It’s not my fault you did poorly. If I give you a pass, then everyone gets a pass"—that’s my position. Take IBM, for example. I have the highest regard for the perennial quality of its annual report, and it offered to underwrite our reception at next fall’s conference at San Antonio. Plus, its senior VP suggested a roundtable involving communications officers discussing future of the print report. Its annual, though, was three short of world-class status, let alone a contender for top 10 ranking. It’s a class act, as I trust this program is seen as.
	2.	If a company does poorly in your evaluation, even when it shines in one area or another, you hold their poor showing against them. True or false? Answer: False. I try to find the good in every report, even those that are wanting. And even those that do superbly, I’m obligated—to its producers as well as the annual report industry—to point out where a report is lacking
	3.	You’ve referred to your "catbird seat." What’s that mean? And is it a positive as far as your analysis of annual reports from around the world? True or false? Answer: A catbird seat is, simply, a view "above the fray," let’s say. While I’m painfully aware of what’s involved in producing a truly fine report, and all the terrible things that can go wrong, I can’t let that influence my evaluation. A CEO dies near press time, and his predecessor, a difficult chap, vetoes the book as the new guy envisioned. Result, perhaps: an awful product. Does that mean I should give all those with excuses a pass? What about when those with excuses do superbly—do I insist they get a pass, too? I know only one way to play it: If you send me your report, you’re fair game, good or bad. You should know if yours is a terrible report, perhaps through no fault of your own. Then don’t send it to me; don’t, though, expect me to give you special treatment. Does that make sense?
	4.	Thanks to the new government mandates—specifically, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOx)—more companies than ever before took responsibility for their financials. True or false? Answer: False, sadly. By my standards, only 42% of 2002 annuals featured a management that assumed responsibility for the financials (including at least the CEO’s signature). Contrasted with 46.2% two years ago, 41.6% last year. Does that look like SOx had any positive impact whatsoever?
	5.	Since no officers or directors would go unidentified in an annual, companies slowly but surely are making sure to identify employees. When they’re pictured in the annual report, that is. True or false? Answer: False. Nearly 62% of companies pictured employees in their 2002 books, but far fewer than half—43.3%—bothered to identify each and every one of them, just as all officers and directors are identified, of course. A year prior, 53.2% pictured employees, only 42.7% of whom were identified…all of them. Among 2000 books, just under half (49.1%) pictured us common folk, 45.2% of whom were identified. Every last one of them. Can you say IN-SIN-CER-I-TY? ("Faceless masses" I call ’em.)
	6.	Companies invest millions in their annuals, which is why fewer and fewer are putting out a full-bodied book. True or false? Answer: That may be the excuse some companies use, but the specific figures—from my exclusive, 18th annual Producer Poll—indicate the annual report budget averages $1.6 million, everything included save salaries. That figures out to an average $3.58 per copy. (Ratio of copies printed to number of shareholders is 1.4. Only year lower was 1.3 among 1999 reports.) For most companies, that’s chicken feed, doesn’t amount to all that much. Most CEOs likely pay far more than that for a chauffeur and limousine-at-the-ready, not to mention club fees and the like.