Activision Blizzard CEO To Get Even Bigger Bonuses...

Krenum

Krenum

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 29, 2005
Messages
19,054

​

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

.
 
Well, take a look at what the Best Buy CEO has done in her strategy to start gutting the company.
 
Krenum said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Powerage said:
What does being run by a woman explain?
Click to expand...
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:
Activision Blizzard CEO To Get Even Bigger Bonuses...
Click to expand...

THANK GOD

1616038464855.png
 
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.
 
Gavv said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Krenum said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Gavv said:
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.
Click to expand...
That's messed up!

Milton from office space comes to mind...
 
The stock is way up the past year and at the end of the day, the CEO works for the shareholders.
 
Jinto said:
The stock is way up the past year and at the end of the day, the CEO works for the shareholders.
Click to expand...
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.
 
ManofGod said:
"How it works." Why do folks here seem so pro CEO, anti good business sense and practice.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Gavv said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
pgaster said:
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:
Click to expand...


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......
 
ManofGod said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
MrGuvernment said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Jinto said:
The stock is way up the past year and at the end of the day, the CEO works for the shareholders.
Click to expand...

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!
 
M76 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
HockeyJon said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
MrGuvernment said:
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.
Click to expand...

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”.
 
Gavv said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
HockeyJon said:
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”.
Click to expand...
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
 
Jinto said:
The stock is way up the past year and at the end of the day, the CEO works for the shareholders.
Click to expand...

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?
 
HockeyJon said:
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”.
Click to expand...
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
Guarana [BAWLS] said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Krenum said:
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?!
Click to expand...
She would be so damn good for Activision, and gamers.
 
I don't understand what the freak out is about with the layoffs? From what I understand these people are part of things like their live e-sports competitions which because of covid and the shift to virtual competitions are all un-needed jobs since they aren't doing any in-person events right now, it makes complete sense and would be silly not to do. As for the bonus to the CEO, I'm jealous as fuck but if he's performing and the company is making good profits then he gets payed for it.

IcePickFreak said:
$200 million for the CEO, $200 gift card for their game store for a severance package seems about right. They probably just actually made the product they sell anyway and that's not important.
Click to expand...
I don't know why people are trying to spin this as they only got a $200 gc as a severance package, they are all getting a MINIMUM of 90 days pay + 1 year of health insurance + 200 gc so lets drop this silly BS about how they aren't getting fair severances.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top