Please don't offer to provide personal instruction to Mr. Annual Report concerning how to navigate your online annual report successfully. It should work, without the personal touch, for every visitor. Either it works—or you've failed. No in-between. However... If you are aware you have technical problems, and have resolved them (if belatedly), by all means email me so I can revisit your website, and update my analysis. | ||
| NW Natural |
Folks talk about the "online annual report," but my contention is there seldom if ever is such an entity.
Take NW Natural, for instance. The company, formerly Northwest Natural Gas Co., based in Portland, Ore., has been a pioneer in turning out an outstanding report—for more than a decade, even before its name change.
Its 2003 print report, with 128 (of a potential 135) points, was good for fourth best worldwide. How's its online annual? Well, again, technically I say there is no such beast. In this case, only if one (1) ignores the admonition to "sign on," and (2) guesses which of the six headings to double-click on—only then does one get to the correct area.
Even then, my experience—after three separate visits, over more than a month—left much to be desired. Consistent? No.
I was overwhelmed the first time with information concerning "rate increases for Oregon and Washington," plus "gas safety for kids." But where's the annual report? That's what I want to see—NW Natural's online annual.
I gave it a tentative C- (that's C minus) on my first visit. I had better luck the second time, deciding the experience warranted an A. I made the mistake of visiting it a third and final time—to see if things might have improved over the months. Things hadn’t. Improved, that is. Final grade: An F (that is, flunking)
|
|
| BMO Financial Group |
Its real name, according to the auditors, is Bank of Montreal. That bit of confusion aside, BMO’s online annual report
(www.bmo.com/annualreport2003) impresses with its simplicity. One is able to navigate the online annual easily. No special
instructions required – that’s as it should be. Among its pluses is a glossary of terms, which only one in nine companies worldwide
includes, at least in their print version. Not entirely clear is the CEO’s reference to “our people,” but the context enables one to
fathom he’s talking about employees. Such reservations aside, this is well deserving of its grade. Grade: A
|
|
| Allstate |
A man I suspect had some involvement with the current online Allstate annual report—a continuing misnomer; no one, none has other than a corporate website which, if one guesses correctly (and consistently), will end up at the online AR—said chap suggested I revisit its current online product, since I had reservations about Allstate's earlier effort. That is, to see if the current version indeed wasn't truly an improvement. That it well may be, but details annoyed. Maybe I'm a perfectionist, but I want a trouble-free online experience. Is that too much to ask? It's not enough to have an engrossing movie, but uncomfortable seats and a noisy viewing audience can ruin the experience—you see what I'm saying? On my first time through the Allstate maize, I finally guessed to click on "Site Map." Thence to a vertical bar, one item (of 15) being investor relations. Quickly, I was proffered the company's online annual, running over eight pages. Things began well enough, I guess you could say, but after three paragraphs of nice-on-the-eyes type, the company went to five paragraphs of awfully small type—four or five-point, if I guessed correctly. Whose bright idea was that? At letter's end, one paragraph was in that decent-size type, then several in minuscule type with an equally tiny CEO signature. In keeping with the policy of visiting an annual report online more than once, I returned, only to forget how I located the annual report the first time. Oh, that's right: You have to guess to click on "Site Map." Again, that would be akin to going to the ticket window at a theater and having to remember what the accepted procedure was before succeeding in gaining entry to the theater. When will someone, somewhere make this an idiot's delight? Don't make the visitor remember the pathway—and for goodness sake don't vary type sizes. You wouldn't do that in the print annual report, would you? Why would anyone do that online? That's a first—and, one hopes, the last time that questionable judgment will be allowed to run rampant. Grade: C+
|
|
| Samsung |
A visitor to www.sidcato.com commended to us an online annual report his New York-based company was involved with. Presumably that’s for Samsung Electronics. I say "presumably," because when I went to a search engine and asked to be taken to
"Samsung 2002 annual report," I ended up with the report of Samsung Group instead. One severe flaw of the group report involves
"the chairman’s vision," whose parts aren’t in parallel. For example, "The will to be the best," is fine, as is "The will to embrace
change" and "The will to grow." What’s not is "We will program..." and "Having good will toward
your fellow man." Fire the aspiring wordsmiths – or the company staffers for whom English is a second language. But what about the
parent company’s online report? The full report runs, it appears, a never-ending 73 pages long. Nine items are listed under the
company profile, one of them the Samsung annual report. So, once again, there is no such thing as an annual report website – only a
company site that may (if one is lucky) direct the visitor to the annual report. Meantime, writing in the parent company’s shareholder
letter left much to be desired, to my way of thinking. Like, "The year of 2002…was a year of challenges..." would better have been
written, "The year 2002 was one of challenges..." And more than one verb usage fell victim to amateurs. Like, "are also
outperforming..." and "was also good." In each instance, a good writer would have written: "also are good "also was good." And
there’s an unnecessary comma in "with continued uncertainty, now a permanent feature..." But, back to the Samsung Group’s report,
which the search engine took me to: For some strange reason, I was taken to the 1997 report... its "auditors’ report." But its 2002
report wasn’t hidden, made part of Investor Relations. Regardless, when I clicked on the 2002 report, nothing happened. Somehow, I
finally maneuvered to it. Technically, not bad, I guess you could say. Visually, fine, as is the parent company’s website. For both:
content, and presentation thereof, good, save some translation glitches. I experienced no direct, easy-to-navigate way to get to where
one’s going, though. This isn’t a maze, folks, where – if one guesses correctly – values galore await him or her. KISS. ("Keep it
simple, stupid.") One last thing: I went back to the Samsung Electronics website to take a fresh look at the letter specifically. I
couldn’t do it unless I was willing to invest the time downloading it again! Maybe it’s my ignorance, but... Grade: B- overall (somewhat charitably)
|
|
| Manitowoc |
If you liked its print version—and I did—you'll enjoy the online version. If you can locate it, that is.
I'll never understand why a company's key corporate communiqué isn't easy for the visitor to find. I clicked on
several areas initially before locating it—"item No. 6, under Financial Pages," my notes indicate. (Noticed the
mention of a "new record." Professional writers know a record is, by definition, new. Unless, of course, one
breaks an old record...) But Manitowoc's loss on the year—82 cents a share vs. a profit of $1.87 the year before,
$2.42 the year before that—wasn't hidden. But then! To double-check some of my facts (my handwriting was
indeed difficult to fathom), I revisited the Manitowoc site; for the life of me, I was unable to find the annual report.
Are you believing this? That enormous, insurmountable negative aside, I found fascinating that, this year, more
companies are enabling vertical scanning, though the visitor then can go side to side. (You had to have been
there...) One criticism that existed in the print version as well: Extensive photo credits (12) were positioned on
the contents page. I think not. It's all moot, though, since on my second visit, I was completely unable to find the
online annual report. I find that mind-boggling. Note my upfront disclaimer: Don't bother telling me where I
went wrong; surely every confused visitor doesn't get hands-on treatment from the headquarters. Grade: F
|
|
| BorgWarner |
The print version of the BorgWarner 2002 annual report is horizontal, rather than the more-traditional vertical format. Not that that makes it bad; in fact, I'm guessing graphic designers would much prefer
the format this Chicago-headquartered company opted for. Its print report is, my notes indicate, "marvelous in so
many respects, not least its celebration of the men and women—the workers—who make any company what it is.
There are flaws, though, in its print version, which is reflected online, obviously. Not least is that the shareholder
letter isn't authored by the CEO, as required in this competition, now in its 20th year; rather, it's by the chairman,
who's nearing retirement. This results in no credit awarded the CEO for the letter. The chairman-signed missive,
though, was credited as a special section, so all wasn't lost. Worse (to my way of thinking; see online dissertation
of my feelings concerning EBITDA) is that the company is among the 13.7% (one of seven) on the year to fall
back on the non-traditional calculation of how well it did. Use of that method of reporting results always makes
me suspicious—as did the chairman's assessment of the year past as "a record." (A record what?) I, by contrast,
saw a per-share loss of $4.44 a share, vs. a year-earlier profit of $2.51. Good, old EBITDA, though, made
everything hunky-dory; it showed there was not a loss year, but indeed a 24.8% improvement. "Figures don't lie,
but liars figure" is the cliché that comes to mind here. (Stockholders' equity was off 11.1% year to year, in case
anyone cares.) What about its online report? There is no online annual report as such; that's a term that should be
done away with, obviously. If one guesses, and has patience, by going to the investor relations section, one will
find, Item No. 4, reference to the annual report. Its download takes 20-plus minutes, which I'm guessing is an
inordinate time for the average computer user. If, as I did, one takes the time, the online version replicates—as it
should, I maintain—the print report. Most online annuals I've visited move horizontally, from page to page.
BorgWarner's online report scrolls vertically (that is, up and down). Nothing wrong with it; it's just different than
most—and, of course, different from the print version. Its employee-centric print report, which impressed
mightily, is faithfully replicated online. If one, first, can guess where it might be found, and, second, if one is
willing to wait 20 or more minutes for the download…then this is every bit as impressive as the print report.
Which, by the way, had an above-average Cato Positive Index of 27.8%, if a terribly wanting 71 points. My grade
for the online version, somewhat inevitably, a reflection of the print report? Grade: B-
|
|
| IBM |
With one minor fault, the online IBM 2002 annual report matches the sterling quality of its print piece. The emphasis for both is the caliber of men and women who proudly call themselves "IBMers," not least, its CEO, who counts 30 years with the company. That fault, uncorrected a day or so after calling it to the company's attention, is minor: the words "Contact IR," when it should have read "Contact IBM," at the bottom of the sign-on page. The ability, for instance, to find George Faulkner's phone number and email address. (He'll be this fall's IBM representative at our 15th annual International Annual Report Conference.) The online annual is lovingly crafted, and most assuredly is reminiscent of the companion print piece. The somewhat-minor fault isn't enough to knock down its evaluation grade. This, folks, is as good as it gets. Grade: A+
|
|
| DaimlerChrysler |
A chap in Vienna—if I didn't know better I'd think he had something to do with Internet-posted, online annual
reports—said he was doing "research dealing with online annual reports." He wondered, just wondered, how I
select online reports to review. The first time I clicked on the link he provided, my computer hung up for several
minutes, which I told him. Second try was more successful. Presented on the site was a nice picture of "Annual
Report 2002." Unfortunately, double-clicking on it doesn't bring one to the 2002 annual report to shareholders of
this company. Instead, subsequently the visitor is offered "Informations (plural) this page"—a chance to sign up to
receive the annual report. Ah, but since no mailing address is requested, one can only assume that won't be a print
piece; rather, emailed data. The visitor also has a chance to sign up for a "mailing service." Again, no hard copy
offered; only sufficient information is requested so email (which it spells e-mail with a hyphen) can be sent. So,
based on what I've seen, the online DaimlerChrysler annual report isn't; it flunked out, left a great deal (no, left
everything) to be desired. What do you suppose the chap in Vienna, his firm's "executive partner," was thinking?
That's as bad as the Australian company a few months back that likewise tripped over its own feet, recommending
some sites it had a hand in developing that required an expert in hieroglyphics to negotiate. Grade: F
|
|
| YUKOS |
Just imagine: A Russian oil company, publicly held, publishes 10,000 copies of its annual report in English, "some in Russian." And since "our website has become the primary source for getting the most updated information on the company, we now publish an online version" of its annual. At www.yukos.com/pdf/YUKOS_AR2001.pdf Its online report runs more than 90 "pages." The report contains reference to the praise lavished on YUKOS by U.S News & World Report in February 2002. It called YUKOS the "world's best-performing energy company." As with most, the online report isn't perfect, but close to it. Employees pictured aren't identified, for one thing, though all officers and directors of course are. (One director is a woman—a U.S. attorney. Of all companies to picture directors in their 2001 reports, 15.5% or more than one in six is seen to exclude women or minorities.) No ages are indicated, though. Two negatives: Evaluation of its letter to shareholders mandates a point lost for writing, its fog index an okay 9.74 but words per sentence average a slightly high 18.0. Worse, it ran five photographs (oops—make that six) of its CEO—big, grandiose, indicating (one suspects) an ego run rampant, not unknown to reports elsewhere around the world. While worthy of note, those reservations don't detract from an exemplary effort—and by a company in a region of the world where one might not expect such a sterling performance. Grade: A-
|
|
| Cinergy |
As it should be, the visit to Cinergy's online annual report is quick and problem-free. From the time I began to search for its online annual, until I signed off, took an amazingly short 10 minutes. It took but a minute, by actual timing, to reach the annual with its excellent theme, "The Power of One." Seven items were offered up; I picked the CEO's letter to shareholders, a report's fulcrum. Its type should have been larger, though. (It needs to be bigger online, I'm convinced, than on a page of the actual print report.) My notes reflect that, near the end, I realized that Cinergy, too, falls back on EBITDA to some degree. Which, to be sure, it defines. If that whippy-dippy form of accounting shows up—up front—in its print report next year, though, an automatic five points will be deducted. Grade: A (despite reference to EBITDA, and even though its auditors were—Arthur Andersen.)
|
|
| Bank of Montreal |
Bank of Montreal was upset that I've not reviewed the print version of its annual report; I explained that, for at least the last three years, I've not received it. Ergo: No review. Its online version of the current, 2001 report, though, navigates magnificently. Its letter to shareholders is of the genre of IBM's, which I've praised with an entire page in the March-April 2002 issue of my print newsletter. The Bank of Montreal letter is outstanding—moving, and memorable. The entire online book impresses. www.bmo.com/annualreport2001
Grade: A
|
|
| DTE Energy |
DTE Energy's talented annual report producer (of the print version, that is) commended to me the utility's online annual report, with the accompanying address www.dteenergy.com I found two links, right up front, to the 2001 annual report. Neither worked. Duh! (Stay tuned; my advice to all: Don't commend your online annual report, or anything else for that matter, until and unless you've navigated it successfully.) Initially, I assigned this online report a flunking grade. But its AR producer said she tried it twice and it worked both times. So I gave 'er another go. This time I succeeded in reaching the right area. But one better plan to allot up to 15 minutes, a lifetime in this connected Internet era—and, then, only to view the cover, after downloading Macromedia's Flash 6.0, a delightful experience. If one doesn't go the Flash route, be prepared for enormous, inexcusably lengthy downloads. In the non-Flash route, the cover alone took nine minutes to download. Three minutes for the letter to shareholders. I'm not a technical person—just an average visitor. I still give this a wanting grade, if raised from an "F."
Online annual report websites are revisited—to be sure (1) Sid Cato's one-time analysis wasn't influenced, say, by a lovely spring day, or by getting soaked while waiting for a bus, and (2) improvements and/or corrections have been taken into account. So it is with the online DTE report. This time, we found the going much smoother, though at one juncture, without warning, a page proclaiming "2001 DTE Energy Annual Report" popped up. That aside, we navigated relatively easily, checking out its 11-year financial data—it's among the one in four to include that many years in the print version of the annual report—and the shareholder letter again. (Inexplicably, it's absent the CEO's signature, a failing to my way of thinking.) Commendable—and most definitely called for—is a disclaimer, which one must indicate he or she agrees to: that the material being read is not timeless, that it was accurate at the time of issue, but not necessarily at a later date, when being accessed. This is a brilliant solution to a potential problem of Internet-posted annuals. Whoever came up with that ought to get a little extra in his or her
bonus envelope.
New grade, raised from the prior C+: B+
|
|
| Allstate |
The hardest thing about this business is having to take to task people you like and/or admire. But just because one likes them, it's not fair to give anyone a pass. That said: We've made our position clear in the boldface type at outset of this feature: If you have to provide special instructions on how to navigate your annual report online, you've failed. That's what struck us concerning the Allstate online report. Chicago-based Meta-4 says it "matches the print book we designed, only it has some nice animation and sound. They wanted a more youthful and dynamic look for the company." (Upfront disclaimer: Allstate is my insurance company, for both car and home.) For starters, know Allstate's is not an annual report website. One requires a special, in-the-know address to get there. You can't get there (at least I couldn't) by typing www.allstate.com Next: On Meta-4's recommendation, I loaded the "flash version"—found at a special address it provided. While it loaded, I performed several other tasks in the office—checked phone messages, re-read some earlier mail, dusted several desks, poured myself a second cup of coffee. When it was, apparently, fully loaded, I sat. And sat. And sat. Only one word appeared on the screen: "Exit." But I don't want to exit. I've gone this far, I want to see Meta-4's handiwork. Finally, my pointer accidentally scrolled over the word "exit"—to learn some of the words were hidden: "Exit to annual report index." Okay, now I get it, even though that's not terribly precise. How's about, "Wanna see our annual?" And—I'm confronted with four items: Investor Relations. Annual Report. Proxy. News Releases. Obviously the annual is behind the second door. Result of clicking on "Annual Report"? Nothing. Nada. Hello—is anyone out there?
(Response from Meta-4? "Perhaps you overlooked the multicolored navigation bar that appears after the brief introduction?" Out of devilishness, I returned to the Allstate site. Strictly by accident, my pointer hit the colored bar. Ah, ha! That's what you want everyone, smart or dumb, intentionally or by accident, to do. Move the curser to the bar and, voila! Things happen. Sorry, but it's got to be programmed for idiots like me. Special instructions shouldn't be required. Or luck. Question: Don't companies beta test such things? If I'm the only person in the whole world who, without special instructions, missed the Allstate annual, then I'm stupid. Bottom line: If you have to explain your site, and how to navigate it, you've failed, I submit.)
Grade: I (incomplete)
|
|
| Sprint |
Here we go again: When's an online annual report not worthy of credit? Answer: When one has to know the "secret handshake" to access it. The code words in this instance, thanks to subscriber Ethan Hirsh: www3.sprint.com/sprint/ir/fn/ars.html Are you believin' that? But that's unfair; what does the average online visitor get by going to www.sprint.com Nothing. No listing of the annual report to shareholders. So, on that basis, Sprint gets a flunking grade. (Though Hirsh, smarter than I, obviously, said he was able to access it with five clicks.) After posting the foregoing on my website, the St. Louis designers emailed in essence that we had jumped the gun, that the Sprint AR online wasn't to go up until late April 25, that it was unfair to award an "F" ranking when its online AR wasn't—well, intended yet ready for prime time. I'll buy that—except I don't think its understandably proud marketing folk should be touting its sterling
work, complete with email addresses, until it truly is ready for prime time.
Now that I know the address, simply typing www.sprint.com will take you to its splash page. Near the bottom, on the right side of two centered elements, is the logo for the online AR. Click on it and—if it works for you as it did for me—four choices will greet you: Its 1997 annual report and investor supplement; its '98 summary report (boo, hiss) and investor supplement; its '99 SAR (again, boo, hiss) and investor supplement—or its 2000 report, not identified as a summary. Plus the ever-popular—you guessed it, investor supplement. (Offerings go all the way back to 1993's full-bodied annual.) An aside: I was struck by its commendable design year after year—on its cover. Credit St. Louis' Falk Harrison Creative, as well as for the online annual report, I'm informed. Know that at least one visitor tried clicking on the image—in this instance, of the 2000 report. That doesn't work. One has to go to a somewhat-hidden pull-down option of (1) the annual report (presumably the print version); (2) the online version of its AR; (3) the PDF version (quick: anyone out there know what that means?), and (4) request a printed copy. To make a long story short, after waiting for what Sprint refers to as "a movie" to play (innovative, it is) on my first visit, I decided to skip it the second time. Nice, but a one-time gimmick—for me, at least. I enjoyed the letter to shareholders, but as readers of my newsletter—the May 2000 issue—know, I find the online report a haven for game-players. One can offer up words that sing, as if crafted by the best writers in the game, and get away without referring to the numbers. I checked to ensure Sprint wasn't playing games, and found its net rebounded from a year-earlier $935 million loss to a $93 million profit. No games here—but the potential continues to exist.
Grade: A -
|
|
| AT&T |
I've long been an advocate of the "managing by walking around" concept. In this context, let's see how a regular human-being fares in navigating the AT&T online annual report. In many respects it was better than some, and I went first to the director listing to see if they were pictured. They aren't, but biographical data on them is admirable. And there's a group shot of some of the very top top executives (not all, but a handful). What most intrigued is that its CEO again disdains addressing a pesky subject: earnings, half the year earlier (at 88 cents a share, vs. $1.74). Neither does he specifically concern himself with the fact that his stock price is off even worse: 66 percent. (That's for the AT&T Common Stock Group, which makes me a tad suspicious. Just tell me what's in all your pockets, please.) For the fun of it, I decided to download the income statements, to see how poorly AT&T has fared over the years. I kept getting a message saying I had downloaded the statements successfully, but kept reverting to my email program, where I was unable to find and/or view the statements. Okay—how's about the seven-year summary, then? Again, the download, fast, was "successful." Only I never was able to view it. Did anyone at AT&T go through the steps—to see how flawlessly things worked? I tell my webmaster: "Figure I'm a typical idiot. If I get confused, you can be sure others will get confused as well!" Meaning: This site, admirable in many ways, needs work. (Before the company contacts us to explain how to navigate the site more successfully, check out the disclaimer at the very beginnning of Sid's World; if you have to explain how to navigate your website, you've failed. It must be self-evident, folks.)
Grade: B- (somewhat charitably)
|
|
| Intel |
Intel of course is the Pentium chip-maker. I was directed to its website by stellar scribe Jean Lawrence—in conjunction with the medical community (she reported) harnessing the power of computers to help find a cure for cancer. On that score, I struck out—twice. While in the neighborhood, I decided I might as well visit Intel's online annual report. Without delay, the company proffered its online report; I opted to visit the letter. It made a typical mistake in writing "The year 2000 was our 14th consecutive year..." Good writers figure out how not to repeat "year" under such circumstances. Not easy, but it can be done. Okay, let's click on the interview with Chm. Andy Grove (as nice a man as ever was named CEO-of-the-Year by Chief Executive) and the CEO, Craig Barnett, discussing Intel's "vision for growth." The interview was interesting and displayed well. Then I came to a "feedback" area. "Click here," I was instructed, if I wanted a print version of the annual. Once, twice, three times I was informed, in essence, "You goofed! You are leaving" the annual report area. I kept saying "No," I didn't want to leave—until the third time, when I threw in the towel. ...and was taken, inexplicably, to an investor relations form that enabled me to ask for the 2000 report in print form! Dumb. I have an old-fashioned attitude—or is it newfangled?—that a website ought to work properly, without the visitor having an advanced degree in computers. Because Intel's had this annoying bug, I downgrade my assessment a bit—and despite the fact that, again, there is no such animal as an annual report website. A corporate site that may (or may not) make mention of the key corporate communiqué—but no AR website. Not that I’ve found.
Grade: A-
|
|
| IBM |
Its print version is the quintessential take-home-and-read (nay, savor;) book. Its online version has its own, separate set of values, as befits an annual using a quite different medium. You'd expect IBM, of all companies, to have a great online annual report. It doesn't disappoint. One doesn't have to guess upon reaching the company's main (splash) page: Three items are offered up, middle one of which was clearly labeled: "2000 annual report focuses on the many stories of IBM," replicating its most-entertaining print approach textually. I downloaded, with some trepidation, a "Flash plugin," which took all of a second to finish. The IBM annual report cover came on screen, gently if automatically, in two stages (lots of type in the print version; highly readable and eye-catching). The print version of its letter to shareholders ran over six pages, twice the worldwide average. But instead of making the online visitor hit the "Page Down" key several times—as with the Disney online report—one simply clicked on the various pages of interest, from Page 1 to the end. I clicked on the word "downloads" to see what happened. It offered a chance to download various files, ranging from the shareholder letter to financials. No photo of the CEO was included, though—not that I could find. That means the company blew a chance to use the boss' picture to get (1) more attention and (2) greater readability, studies indicate. In the print report, the boss' picture followed the first page; he wasn't pictured alone, either, a double drawback. That aside, the online report lives up to Big Blue's reputation—as well it should. (Warning: Avoid at all costs the online survey, doubtless by its marketing people. It won't stop, goes on and on—until at least one visitor turned off his computer in a frantic attempt to finish, already! I call the marketing folks' survey the Kudzu of Computers—that's how intrusive it is.) Grade: A
|
|
| Tellabs |
Finally! Finally, somebody who knows what he's doing—taking the print edition of the company's annual report and translating it into an electronic version. Believe it or not, that simple act—well, isn't so simple. It requires brainpower. Smarts. Contrasting with others (Disney's letter, for one, requiring multiple clicks of the "Page Down" key), its letter occupies one online page. Excerpts (CEO's letter and financial highlights) from its report are translated into Spanish, Portuguese, Finnish, Danish, French, Chinese and German (though no Japanese). Its letter, not simply a mass of unbroken (thus, unreadable) type, was supplemented with a feature from the print report: an eight-item Q&A involving the two top execs. Not least, its grid—one of two on the year to date (in the print version, that is) to warrant all five points—cited both customers and competitors. (Hear the screams of agony, of pain, emanating from the company, revealing such top-secret information, known only to every vendor in the industry? No.) One of its simple features is a bar across the top, listing availability of items ranging from its "At a Glance" to its management and "investor information." My notes indicate: First, "This is an idiot’s delight." (Don't make me figure out
how to find your annual report; Tellabs' is right there on the splash page, the cover reproduced to make it easy to locate.) Second, "If anything, this is better than the print report." That's terribly unique. Hail those who gave birth to this gem.
Grade: A+
|
|
| DiamondCluster |
Readers of the print version of my newsletter will recall my dismay at the Diamond Technology Partners report, not least its cover and foo-foo graphics, as I call them: artsy-smartsy. To be sure, the report richly warranted consideration for the year's list of world's worst annuals. Well, it's back, and with a new name for the Chicago-based firm, having acquired/merged with a European consulting company. How's the new entity's online annual report? Nine items listed, one of them "Investors." Sixteen items under that, one of them the 2000 annual report. Second paragraph of the letter to shareholders says the report theme is "Innovation."
Gee, that gives me loads of confidence in the with-in consulting company: How original! "Innovation" happens to be one of the more-frequent annual report themes. Among 1997 reports, for instance, an Illinois food firm used the word in its theme, as did a New Jersey-based pharmaceutical company and two Nevada gaming outfits. A year later, an Illinois auto/bus/truck manufacturer selected as its theme, "Creating genuine value through business innovation." A diversified Wisconsin firm heralded itself as "New innovation center." An Iowa household appliance maker opted for "Creating value through innovation." Among 1999s, the word "innovation" appeared in reports of companies based in Wisconsin, Illinois, Minnesota, California and abroad (that is, a foreign firm). That said: If one lacks confidence in DiamondCluster, perhaps he shouldn't request a copy of the print report. The visitor is advised that if he or she doesn't receive the item requested "after an appropriate amount of time," contact so-and-so. Okay... One last thing: If I didn't know better, I'd think the website has a weird tracking device. Text in the shareholder letter was overprinted with a vertical series of boxes. The first had within it ++, the second +, the third +-, the fourth –, the fifth --, and a question mark appeared at the very end. It followed me wherever I went.
Grade: D-
|
|
| Nokia |
I’ve never had the pleasure of receiving (and, thus, reviewing) this company's print report. But friend Reg Pauffley (regone@hotmail.com) commended the Nokia website (http://www.nokia.com/main.html), which I believe he
developed. The opening (that is, splash) page was inviting, with half a dozen features. The lead one dealt with "Corporate Reporting 2000." I clicked on that. Good guess. I was taken to the 2000 report's lengthy letter to shareholders, illustrated with individual photos of its two signers. (The letter struck at least one observer as more aimed at Wall Street than the
individual investor.) Somehow, I found myself on a screen with a new, joint photograph of the CEO and the president. As
with Walt Disney before it (see scathing Disney review), reading Nokia's letter required multiple hits of my computer's "page down" key, indicating to me the missive likely occupied four pages typeset—that is, in the print version of its annual report. (To break the monotony, several blocks of type were "enlivened" with a not-all-that-pleasing bluish tint.) One feature on the
opening page dealt with "the new Nokia 9210 Communicator—in brilliant color!" I opted to try for a "virtual reality download"—twice, actually—without success. The screen, bearing the words "A Windows Media™ Interactive QTVR View," simply glared back at me, refused to budge.
Grade: B
|
|
| Walt Disney Co. |
Since online annuals are evaluated against different standards than the print version—for example, honesty takes a back seat online to graphics and ease of negotiating the electronic version of a corporation's key communiqué—Disney could
have run counter to its print edition, which is woeful. I'm sure it's there somewhere, but I had trouble finding out how to access the online Disney report. I clicked on www.waltdisney.com and found the Disney family wisely had reserved that address for Walt and his heirs, not the folks currently minding the company store. (Welcome to the "Walt Disney Family Museum," to be sure, a bit spooky.) Finally guessing the correct address to the online report, I was greeted with six choices. Try "Financial Publications"? Yea. It worked. However...an interminable 50 seconds elapsed for the unappealing cover to appear. It's the same as in print—a meaningless (to at least one visitor) rock projectile, as I describe it. Then the Internet visitor is greeted with the word "Introduction." Three items, one of them the letter—which ran ever so long as in the print edition; 16 hits of my computer's page-down key to traverse the entire monstrosity, which in the print version ran eight pages long, almost thrice the worldwide average. I admit for all the world to know of my prejudice toward Mickey Eisner and his minions. (Bet the former ABC usher has trouble spelling M-I-C, K-E-Y without singing it.)
Grade: D-
|
|
| Brady Corp. |
Its print report was the first to achieve "world-class" status, scoring at least 100 of a potential 135 points. Its producer provided the address of the company’s online annual report with encouragement that we visit the electronic edition. Only after our first time did it occur to us that the average person doesn’t have a precise address; he or she first goes to the Brady website. As with all other corporations, this year or last, there is no such animal as an annual report website. In this and other instances, there’s a company website featuring—if one guesses correctly—the annual report to shareholders. Brady’s site offered four choices. "Investor Information" was one of four and, as it developed, a good guess. In the upper left-hand corner, then, was "New—2000 annual report," clear enough. The 2000 report cover was a bit slow to load, but faithfully replicated look of the print version. In the letter are links to provide more information on various subjects—"Eclipse," for instance. (Whatever that is.) I clicked on the link and had what seemed an eternity (actually, only 60 seconds; still, awfully long in Internet
terms) to wait until "Eclipse" was explained. Brady offered up a separate glossary of financial terms. I continue to prefer George Stenitzer’s links, in body copy itself, to various definitions. That’s using the abilities of the Internet better, to my way of
thinking, than to replicate a print-version feature. But that's far-outweighed by the online version's unique features, not least an interactive downloadable spreadsheet of the company's financial history with ratios and growth rates, and a letter to shareholders in French, German, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, Chinese, Korean and Japanese, an unprecedented eight languages in addition to English.
Grade: A
|
|
| Atmos Energy |
Its print report, though a dismaying summary, is most appealing. And its theme, "Continuing our tradition of growth," is good, too. But its online report has several failings. Especially so if, as the company wrote, the online version will have to
suffice henceforth (for all but stockholders, that is). For one thing, there's no reference whatsoever on the splash page to its annual. On that introductory page, instead of its commendable theme is one that's entirely different. The site is current, having been updated but a week prior to our visit. Okay: Search on "2000 annual report." That takes me, not to any version of its print piece, but to "abstracts" dealing with bill-paying and the like. How's about "financials"? Maybe that's where the visitor will find an electronic version of Atmos' print piece. Nope again. What's there is a quote from the chief executive officer and a graph of 10-year total return to shareholders, plus Atmos' dividend history.
Grade: I
|
|
| SKF |
Sweden's SKF says that from now on, only those who request a print report will receive one from the company; the online version will have to suffice. Again, the premise—that stockholders can be as well, if not better, served with the Internet version than the old-fashioned print report—is faulty; it's flawed thinking. Click on "Investor Relations" and one gets nothing but a color bar bearing various words. Back to the splash page, nifty graphics and all. Search for its 2000 annual report and—"No articles match your query." What is there is an online magazine, "Evolution." One learns that among SKF's customers are the likes of Time magazine, for which it provides paper. If a paper company won't go for the print-heavy annual report, then who will, for heaven's sake? What do you suppose possesses increasing numbers of publicly held companies, here and abroad?
Grade: I
|
|
| RLI Corp. |
World's second-best print report on the year (its 1999 document, that is) is equally good online (www.rlicorp.com/AnnualReport99/cover.htm) -- save for too, too, too much hard-to-read italics, especially graph captions, which are set in somewhat-smaller type to begin with. Be advised, folks: Italicized type online is a bear to read. Also, there was a long delay while the visitor waited to reach the letter to shareholders, complete with CEO photograph. I'd have offered that up earlier, rather than later.
Grade: B+
|
|
| AFLAC |
This company's print annual report is at, or near the top, again with its 1999 edition. So could one assume the electronic (that is, online) version
would be similarly sensational? Think so and you'll be sorely disappointed. The good news is that a visit to AFLAC online takes little time (I was in and out in four minutes). The bad news is there's no online annual report—at least, none I could find. It took 15 seconds (too long) to see what the visitor's seven options are. (None was the annual report.) I clicked on the only one to make sense: Investor Information. Other than the meaningless word "very" as in "...very active in its communications efforts with shareholders and potential investors," there's nothing of interest there—certainly, no online report. But there is reference (and a link) to the National Association of Investment Clubs (NAIC). Or, one can "email Investor Relations." Nope, I wanted to review your online report, folks. Not even a chance to have a copy of the print report sent me. Bad. Worse than bad, almost.
Grade: F
|
|
| IBM |
What began as an encouraging foray into the world of the online annual report turned—well, frustrating for a few minutes there. The visitor to www.ibm.com is greeted with the front cover (containing "dot.com," as in .com) of IBM’s 1999 annual report (archived: annuals for the previous five years) followed by the phrase, "e-business has arrived for everyone." Then, "We’re not changing our name. Just everything else. And we’re not the only ones." So far so good. But then I thought, perhaps incorrectly, I saw reference to the 1998 annual report. So I said, "Whoa. You don’t suppose they goofed, do you?" Somehow, that move—trying to back up a step—resulted in a detour that took me to an admonition to "Subscribe to this premium website." I had no such intention. Finally—finally!—I succeeded in getting back to the annual report by clicking on the word "investor." I opted to read the letter to shareholders (it runs over seven online pages, which seems rather long). Text, for the first 100 words, at least, was the same as in the print report, and warranted all 10 points for writing. (Cato Befogging Index a low 5.92, accompanied by a succinct 13.1 average words per sentence.) Contact someone for a copy of the printed document, which I suspect many might want? No communications professionals among the many listed (technical service; wanna buy our products, etc.), and no ability to request a copy, as other company websites (one such: Chevron’s) offer. Oh, yes: Also absent, at least at this early stage of its posting, is a delightful fillip commended with its 1998 report: the shareholder letter translated into a slew of foreign languages. Grade: B-
|
|
| Land O’Lakes |
By rights, its website shouldn’t even have been visited, since it’s not a publicly held company—all we are involved with. Rather, it’s a farm cooperative, like Ocean Spray, the cranberries people. But a Boston-based investor relations firm hailed its online 1998 letter to stakeholders as outstanding (why an IR firm would be interested in a farm coop is beyond me). So, visit www.landolakes.com. We did. It takes a bit of doing to get to the annual report, but once there, it’s more than adequate. I found its letter good, frank, forthcoming. Writing warranted all 10 points, there being 15.7 average words per sentence and a 9.56 fog index. One element that impressed: "Our Values," which included, among other items, the company’s vision and mission. Also, someone should tell the annual report producer that in picturing two executives, the more important of the pair should be on the left as the camera faces them. So the CEO, in this instance, should have been identified before the chairman. (The eye works from left to right, of course.) That aside, its score is impacted by the annual report being so far down the online corporate hierarchy. Otherwise, it’s pretty good. Grade: B+
|
|
| Time Warner |
I've now visited its website (www.timewarner.com) twice, and fail to see what excited Martin Peers, a reporter with The Wall Street Journal. Peers raved April 4 (it sounded like he was quoting from a news release issued by the company about its "digital strategy") that TW "Puts annual report online to underscore digital shift." Whatever that means. On my first, and very last, visit, I noted one is welcomed by a "weird, out-of-focus" image. When I clicked on that, I was taken to an old-fashioned, text-only page that offered to update my browser. (Thanks, but I've got the latest version, guys.) On my first visit, I discovered its 1996-8 (but not current!) annuals archived. This time, even that eluded me. Maybe it's me—or maybe it's the WSJ reporter, who hasn't a clue as to what's happening in the field of annual reports, online or otherwise. Oh, yes: I requested a copy of Time Warner's print report, was told to "allow up to 10 days" before I start getting ansy. Four have lapsed so far. Stay tuned. Sorry, but this online fiasco warrants nothing better than a flunking grade—as does would-be savant Martin Peers, now that I think about it. If this be the online annual report of the future, spare me! (In fact, spare me as well if this be the future of supposedly learned WSJ coverage.) After a month, its print version has yet to arrive. Why am I not surprised?
Grade: F
|
|
| Southern Company |
If there’s one print annual report with a sense of humor, year after year, it’s that of Southern Co., blessed with a chief executive who doesn’t take himself too seriously. Frankly, Bill Dahlberg is kind of a nut, but a delight, nonetheless. So is his online annual report (his print version currently vying for Top Five status). More than most, it replicates the look and feel of the print edition. What’s more, there’s no abundance of pages to weigh through as a prelude to why one clicked on www.southernco.com in the first place: to review its online annual report. The visitor is taken right there. Theme of the report is the truly unique "This is not Joe." There sits CEO Dahlberg, astride a motorcycle, complete with smile-inducing sound effects of his bike being revved up. It’s a bit confusing as to where one goes from there, but I guessed correctly: I clicked on a thumbnail of that big motorcycle picture. Good guess. A host of other larger-than-usual thumbnail photos, illustrating various points made in the print report, appear across the page bottom as well. Want to check out the financials, downloadable in PDF format (meaningless to us non-techies)? Okay. But I called a halt to things after a minute by my watch, a lifetime online, the download still in its "thinking" stage. But where’s the company’s address, phone number—best of all, its email address? I never found that, but I did come to a page with type printed on a gorgeous red background. I’m big on red, and this was one of my favorite shades (perhaps Chinese red). But it was too, too dark for ease of reading. Criticism aside, this is the current best of the lot. Its pluses far outweigh any minuses. Take it for a spin—I guarantee you won’t be disappointed. Grade: A
|
|
| Topdanmark |
Denmark’s Topdanmark I visited, and spent time with, a decade ago on
a week-long visit to Copenhagen. It’s nice to see that even the successors to those I counseled are maintaining high standards. Specifically, in its 1999 print report, there’s a huge photograph of the general manager of its communications and investor relations department, holding aloft a copy of that better-than-average document. Along with text advising that the company became Denmark’s first "ever to publish its complete annual report in Danish and English on the Internet ( www.topdanmark.dk) at the same time as its annual results were published." That in itself is worthy of praise, as is the company’s "no-windup-before-the-pitch" approach: Its online opening, in boldface, is that the company "suffered a loss of DKK 163m." And, properly so, that loss was positioned in the next sentence: "Excluding DKK 1,040m claim payments following (a) hurricane in December...the result would have been a profit of DKK 596m." This isn’t a States-sophisticated website, but it’s far more than adequate. And it’s honest, something that can’t be said for more than 10 of every 100 annuals worldwide. Grade: A
|
