 |  Periodic editorials concerning everything from the very worst industry—from an annual report standpoint, that is—to what's wrong with the Fourth Estate. Reporters who can't hit an accuracy with a cannon. |
|
| Periodic editorials concerning everything from the very worst industry—from an annual report standpoint, that is—to what's wrong with the Fourth Estate. Reporters who can't hit an accuracy with a cannon. |
|
|
Misconceptions concerning the annual report to shareholders abound
Sid's 15th annual Producer Poll reveals not opinions, but what's actually happening in the world of annual reports. Read: facts. Annual reports' cost has soared out of control. True or false? Most producers of the key corporate communiqué are financial executives. True or false? For most, producing an annual report is a one-person show. True or false? Most invest fewer than six months on the project. True or false? The misconceptions that abound are just that—misconceptions. Statements or opinions of would-be seers whose foundation for such pronouncements is limited to fantasy, or perhaps visions of days gone by. One would assume reporters (and others) would rely not on opinions, but on facts garnered statistically—for instance, in a poll such as we conduct among producers of annuals. Here are some of the answers indicated by my 15th annual Producer Poll: First, the cost of annuals isn't out of control. In fact, the $3.39 currently (when results distortions are excluded) is up but seven cents year to year. And it's only four cents more than producers reported investing in their 1989 annuals. A decade earlier. Most respondents to my survey—six of 10—list public relations in their backgrounds. Only one in 11 or 12 has finance as a credential. Eight in 10 say theirs is a team effort. Just under 21 percent describe theirs as a one-person show. Length of time most invest? Six months (44.1 percent), followed closely by six-plus months (35.3 percent). So 80 percent spend six or more months on the project. Only one in five (20.6 percent) says he or she spends fewer than six months. Biggest change over the years: ratio of copies printed per shareholder. Year after year, the ratio was 1.9—meaning essentially two copies were printed per shareholder, as a rule of thumb. This year (1999 annuals): down to 1.2, from 1.7 among '98s. Why? My guess is it's a direct result of the influence of the Internet. Companies don't feel they any longer require such a huge overrun. They may be right. Addendum: I'll be thrilled if I never hear/read the old-IBMer's "at this point in time." Meaning: Now! And, the currently prevalent "at the end of the day," as a GOP operative used thusly: "At the end of the day, you have to live with yourself" or some-such. Plus in The Wall Street Journal article concerning the new Home Depot CEO. New words I've learned recently: "Encomium." Meaning: warmly enthusiastic praise, as for friend William H. Rentschler's tome on the late United States Senator Barry Goldwater (available through Amazon.com). "Inapposite," meaning "not apposite." Used by the online Slate. Apposite means "relevant" or "apt." "Inapposite" just the opposite. Then there's Slate's reference to "Gore's claim to majoritarian legitimacy," a corker if there ever was one. Finally, the Journal, in discussing the British working-class television drama "Coronation Street," referred to "Fictional residents of seven Manchester row houses on the eponymous street in northern England..." "Eponymous" of course meaning "self-named"—as in Sid Cato's eponymous Newsletter on Annual Reports. |
| << Back to the Soapbox Main Page |
|
|
