Activision Blizzard CEO To Get Even Bigger Bonuses...

Krenum

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 29, 2005
Messages
17,588

While others get laid off.


https://kotaku.com/activision-blizzard-ceo-to-get-even-bigger-bonuses-whil-1846493910
"that the most recently laid off employees would receive healthcare benefits throughout the year as part of their severance package. They would also get $200 gift cards to Battle.net, I guess so that they can still buy the latest Overwatch skins even while being out of a job, and even while their former boss is about to rake in millions in additional bonuses".

$200 gift cards for Battle.net sounds like a fair severance package o_O

.
 

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
12,210
Well, take a look at what the Best Buy CEO has done in her strategy to start gutting the company.
 

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
12,210
Ran by a woman eh? That explains a lot.

Does Best Buy even have any guts left to gut? I walk into my local Best Buy and its really sad looking. I think the only thing keeping them above water are cell phones.

Actually, they were extremely profitable and going strong, until she started gutting and stripping it away. They make $40 Billion in revenues last year and almost all of that was from the stores themselves. Half of all online sales were for in store pickup. No, they were a highly successful chain until she got her hands on it.
 

Krenum

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 29, 2005
Messages
17,588
What does being run by a woman explain?
Ah, you know how woman are, they make their decisions on emotion and not common sense or practicality, except for that Dr. Lisa over at AMD, she seems to have her head in the game. AMD was being ran into the ground before she took over, maybe she should take over Best Buy too.

Or maybe even activision?!
 
Last edited:

DPI

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
11,445
Activision Blizzard CEO To Get Even Bigger Bonuses...

THANK GOD

1616038464855.png
 

Gavv

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 4, 2005
Messages
13,609
Seems like just business.

His contract has things written in and they were activated. Despite for the disdain of how much he makes etc.... if you want to limit his pay don’t write things into the contract.

Seems fairly simple.

Layoffs happen and that’s business. The CEO gets paid for making thing profitable. Sometimes that comes at others job expenses. Sucks but it happens.

So sounds like just business and a lot of jealousy and sour grapes.
 

Krenum

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 29, 2005
Messages
17,588
Seems like just business.

His contract has things written in and they were activated. Despite for the disdain of how much he makes etc.... if you want to limit his pay don’t write things into the contract.

Seems fairly simple.

Layoffs happen and that’s business. The CEO gets paid for making thing profitable. Sometimes that comes at others job expenses. Sucks but it happens.

So sounds like just business and a lot of jealousy and sour grapes.

Fair enough. I just thought it was funny / odd that Battle.net gift cards were included in the severance package, that's some salt in the wound type stuff.
 

Gavv

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 4, 2005
Messages
13,609
Fair enough. I just thought it was funny / odd that Battle.net gift cards were included in the severance package, that's some salt in the wound type stuff.

Sure I get that. But they actually have worth as well. Now some may find that bad taste. I certainly wouldn’t like it. But if it was a cell phone company for instance and they gave you 6-12 months service for free is it any worse or better?

All depends on perspective I guess.

I have a friend who was laid off. Had to train her replacement from India in order to get her severance package. That’s a kick to any part of the body. I think that shouldn’t be legal but it is apparently.

I just don’t see the Blizzard thing as to bad as they made a contract.
 

LukeTbk

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
1,068
Kind of fear that they regularly give employee stuff like battlenet credit has a form of compensation/bonus and this is not having the next one removed from them because they got fired.
 

Krenum

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 29, 2005
Messages
17,588
I have a friend who was laid off. Had to train her replacement from India in order to get her severance package. That’s a kick to any part of the body. I think that shouldn’t be legal but it is apparently.
That's messed up!

Milton from office space comes to mind...
 

Jinto

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 10, 2006
Messages
1,744
The stock is way up the past year and at the end of the day, the CEO works for the shareholders.
 

MrGuvernment

Fully [H]
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
19,936
The stock is way up the past year and at the end of the day, the CEO works for the shareholders.
Bingo, but everyone gets mad when the CEO makes mad money, how about instead aim to be like them, to be able to run a multibillion dollar company and make your shareholders money, all while being smart enough to negotiate a contract where you get this sort of stuff.
 

Gavv

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 4, 2005
Messages
13,609
"How it works." Why do folks here seem so pro CEO, anti good business sense and practice.

You haven’t shown it doesn’t make good business or practice or than your statement. He’s judged by the revenue he makes for shareholders. That’s something anyone in the private sector can tell you sucks from time to time. But it is fact of life. Those on top are going to make cuts to business and those on top are going to get bonuses.

The public outcry isn’t the sole metric on which he is judged. He’d have to be losing a lot of cash for it to be a concern.
 

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
12,210
You haven’t shown it doesn’t make good business or practice or than your statement. He’s judged by the revenue he makes for shareholders. That’s something anyone in the private sector can tell you sucks from time to time. But it is fact of life. Those on top are going to make cuts to business and those on top are going to get bonuses.

The public outcry isn’t the sole metric on which he is judged. He’d have to be losing a lot of cash for it to be a concern.

I am not required to show you, just simply do some research for yourself, or even watch some Camelot331 or Joshua Fluke video's on youtube, if you like. However, I am sure there are many other sources who say the same thing and public outcry is not what I am speaking of, I am straight up saying having more money in the short term is not good business sense when the business is crashing and burning because of the CEO's choices.

Greed is greed, simple as that and if you are firing really good, profitable employees well making money hand over fist, that is greed to the extreme. That will do nothing but drive the business into the ground. Oh well, enjoy supporting them...... *Shrug* I have made my point and....... whatever.
 

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
12,210
Best Buy fired almost all their full time employees recently.
The best sales people got the ax too, that did not matter.
This guy has covered it and more:

Thank you. And this is not even the last video made on it nor the only person who is doing this type of coverage. I think, not feel, think that this is a real bad thing and an BB is no where near the only corporation doing so......
 

Gavv

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 4, 2005
Messages
13,609
I am not required to show you, just simply do some research for yourself, or even watch some Camelot331 or Joshua Fluke video's on youtube, if you like. However, I am sure there are many other sources who say the same thing and public outcry is not what I am speaking of, I am straight up saying having more money in the short term is not good business sense when the business is crashing and burning because of the CEO's choices.

Greed is greed, simple as that and if you are firing really good, profitable employees well making money hand over fist, that is greed to the extreme. That will do nothing but drive the business into the ground. Oh well, enjoy supporting them...... *Shrug* I have made my point and....... whatever.

This is where opinions will differ. There’s greed in everything.

Employees are greedy, management (different tier employees are greedy) and of course shareholders are greedy.

I don’t subscribe to limitation of wealth. And that’s what you are saying by it’s bad to be greedy. I work in the private sector and I am salary (SNE) and worse yet at will employee. We all accept the contracts we work for. If the CEO decides to cut that’s on the CEO. Call it greed, call it bad. Practice... only the shareholder really gets to judge that officially so to speak.

I glad you posted a YouTube video. It’s just an opinion. That’s it. I can say his profits validate the decisions he’s making. That’s an opinion too. When the business goes under that’s up to those shareholders to right that ship.

I don’t see Blizzard Activision going under anytime soon. So while his decisions may get some people’s ire up.. it’s business.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
11,906
They let go people tied to organizing live events and e-sports competitions. I'm surprised they kept them on for 12 months while they sat around doing nothing. This is a company, not a charity, besides there are better cases for that.
 

HockeyJon

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 14, 2014
Messages
1,416
Bingo, but everyone gets mad when the CEO makes mad money, how about instead aim to be like them, to be able to run a multibillion dollar company and make your shareholders money, all while being smart enough to negotiate a contract where you get this sort of stuff.

The problem isn’t with CEOs that make money, it’s with those who don’t and still get massive pay packages because the compensation model is broken. Why should GE shareholders be ok with Jeff Immelt getting his massive pay package? Should BlackBerry shareholders have been good with Thorsten Heins’ big pay package? I don’t care if a company wants to pay a good CEO good money, but there is something to be said about C-suite compensation across the board being disconnected from reality thanks to an old boys network who have perpetuated this “market” to their own benefit. I think we’ve all been in or seen scenarios where employees are told a company “simply can’t afford” a $500 bonus for them while their management team rewards themselves with thousands of dollars in bonus money for the money they saved the company by not paying yours.
 

HockeyJon

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 14, 2014
Messages
1,416
The stock is way up the past year and at the end of the day, the CEO works for the shareholders.

Activision stock is way up the past year because every “stuck at home” stock is way up the past year. Selling video games in 2020 was literally like shooting fish in a barrel. That’s the long and short of it. It was not up last year because Bobby Kotick is some kind of unusually talented genius businessman who should be showered with money for his stunning triumph in 2020. I mean what earth-shattering decisions did he make last year that moved the needle? Launch another Call of Duty game? Wow, give him an extra few million on that bonus cheque for such an innovative and industry game-changing decision!
 

leon1992

n00b
Joined
Mar 18, 2021
Messages
2
I don’t subscribe to limitation of wealth. And that’s what you are saying by it’s bad to be greedy. I work in the private sector and I am salary (SNE) and worse yet at will employee. We all accept the contracts we work for.
 

HockeyJon

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 14, 2014
Messages
1,416
They let go people tied to organizing live events and e-sports competitions. I'm surprised they kept them on for 12 months while they sat around doing nothing. This is a company, not a charity, besides there are better cases for that.

I agree with this. Just because layoffs were done doesn’t mean a manager can’t receive a bonus. Layoffs can be a necessity at times for operational reasons. It’s unfortunate that it impacts people’s lives (I’ve been laid off twice, it sucks), but retaining dead weight can put the rest of the company at risk, creating a bigger problem later on.

On the flip side, there’s no denying that the compensation models for the C-suite in corporate America are broken in a lot of respects. Large bonuses for executives who aren’t that great to begin with is the most obvious sign of this.
 

MrGuvernment

Fully [H]
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
19,936
The problem isn’t with CEOs that make money, it’s with those who don’t and still get massive pay packages because the compensation model is broken. Why should GE shareholders be ok with Jeff Immelt getting his massive pay package? Should BlackBerry shareholders have been good with Thorsten Heins’ big pay package? I don’t care if a company wants to pay a good CEO good money, but there is something to be said about C-suite compensation across the board being disconnected from reality thanks to an old boys network who have perpetuated this “market” to their own benefit. I think we’ve all been in or seen scenarios where employees are told a company “simply can’t afford” a $500 bonus for them while their management team rewards themselves with thousands of dollars in bonus money for the money they saved the company by not paying yours.

Again, was added into their contracts, so if they like it or not, it is illegal for them not to do it....and that would cost them even more money.

It is making sure you have the golden parachute ready to go even if things fail miserably. It does suck, companies going under and people uptop still getting stupid money, but it is the business world and how most of them work. Until companies change that model (highly unlikely) it wont ever change.
 

HockeyJon

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 14, 2014
Messages
1,416
Again, was added into their contracts, so if they like it or not, it is illegal for them not to do it....and that would cost them even more money.

It is making sure you have the golden parachute ready to go even if things fail miserably. It does suck, companies going under and people uptop still getting stupid money, but it is the business world and how most of them work. Until companies change that model (highly unlikely) it wont ever change.

Yes it was, which underscores something seriously wrong with corporate America. Forget the excessive compensation packages, I challenge anyone to explain to me how golden parachute clauses in contracts are done “in the interest of the shareholder”.
 

Guarana [BAWLS]

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 3, 2001
Messages
1,938
Sure I get that. But they actually have worth as well. Now some may find that bad taste. I certainly wouldn’t like it. But if it was a cell phone company for instance and they gave you 6-12 months service for free is it any worse or better?

All depends on perspective I guess.
Not even slightly:
A Cell Phone is a service I'm going to be paying for no matter what. Giving someone 6-12 months service on something they're GOING to be paying? That's a legitimate service to them.

200 bucks B.Net cash? Ain't in any way, shape or form the same thing.
 

Guarana [BAWLS]

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 3, 2001
Messages
1,938
Yes it was, which underscores something seriously wrong with corporate America. Forget the excessive compensation packages, I challenge anyone to explain to me how golden parachute clauses in contracts are done “in the interest of the shareholder”.
And at this point the shareholder myth needs to die. Employees, Customers, and then shareholders are what should matter, in that order.

See: https://www.forbes.com/sites/steved...older-value-is-finally-dying/?sh=589f10666746
 

MaZa

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 21, 2008
Messages
3,223
The stock is way up the past year and at the end of the day, the CEO works for the shareholders.

Correct me if I am wrong but not too long ago weren't the shareholders also questioning how much he was making money and how sensible it is?
 

Krazy925

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 29, 2012
Messages
5,146
Yes it was, which underscores something seriously wrong with corporate America. Forget the excessive compensation packages, I challenge anyone to explain to me how golden parachute clauses in contracts are done “in the interest of the shareholder”.
Offering golden parachutes widens the pool of applicants and attracts high-level employees. Reduce/Remove conflict of interest during a merger: Often during a merger, executives are nervous about their job security and can be tempted to delay or sabotage the merger through defenses such as a poison pill.

It’s also in most intro to business courses. Better executive decisions can mean more revenue. Although I normally look at it the opposite. Bad business decisions lead to less revenue. See Marissa Meyer at both google and yahoo. Actually just see yahoo’s scatter shot approach when they got on the celebrity CEO wagon
And at this point the shareholder myth needs to die. Employees, Customers, and then shareholders are what should matter, in that order.

See: https://www.forbes.com/sites/steved...older-value-is-finally-dying/?sh=589f10666746
Short-term profits should be allied with an increase in the long-term value of a company. I don’t think anyone from c suites around the world would argue with that quote from the ex CEO of GE jack welch.
The hierarchy you laid out doesn’t make sense. Unless by employees you mean innovation. Employees do matter but depending on the product or service being customer centric can be paramount depending on how many other firms you are competing with.

I don’t think anyone can disagree that if you have a good product and employees who don’t mind making suggestions about manufacturing or iterating on the product then the shares will rise. You need innovation from staff.
All I’m saying is when I’m meeting with outside investors they do care about shareholder metrics. Interestingly short term profit maximization doesn’t reflect in the stock value many times anyways especially if it’s not sustainable. They absolutely love when you can either produce faster or cheaper because of suggestions from “the floor”.

I’ll wrap this up by saying fuck Bobby Kotick though. I don’t give blizzard much money anymore because I don’t like what they’re making. He’s said quite specifically many times that he’d rather make annualized games for consistent profits rather than one off titles. See SC2 being episodic.
$200 GC though seems unusually tone deaf.
 

Decko87

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 23, 2007
Messages
1,875
This thread is pretty embarrassing, way too many people on the side of executioners. This to me speaks to the dominance of Amazon then anything else and them wanting to compete by having fewer employees. Working conditions for average people in this country is only going to worse. There's a few successful ESOPs and worker co-ops in my area, much happier employees and very successful businesses, I think it's going to require an entire restructure of the way businesses are owned to solve the problem. Could be wrong, but if as long as this trend continues I only see the middle class shrinking, and larger permanent under class.
 
Top