-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Pach-Attack: 'How Much is Bobby Kotick Worth?'
- Thread starter dmr87
- Start date
Iacobellis
Junior Member
He's back!
Fantastic episode, his commentary about CEO compensation and Activision was fascinating to me.
His remark "[CEOs] aren't greedy, they're fully aligned with shareholders" was a great way to put it. It's so much common sense, but not something I really think about on a regular basis, makes perfect sense.
Thought he was on the money about Nintendo and Iwata/Reggie, as well.
His remark "[CEOs] aren't greedy, they're fully aligned with shareholders" was a great way to put it. It's so much common sense, but not something I really think about on a regular basis, makes perfect sense.
Thought he was on the money about Nintendo and Iwata/Reggie, as well.
darkside31337
Tomodachi wa Mahou
He makes a pretty convincing argument that Kotick is underpaid if anything.
I bet the cod devs were more underpaid.
What? He was negative about it, mind you, only in this board tho.
Winterfang
Banned
That was a great episode. Especially the Activision stuff from the beggining, fascinating to see how CEO works and why Activision has being able to be so succesful and why Kotick and his team where so important in what happened.
fuzzy.dunlop
Banned
Pachter said something that was not entirely correctly, but I'm sure he said it to keep things simple for viewers. He mentioned that executives' compensation should by tied to share prince increases as they are a measure of how the executive has increased shareholder value.
Shareholder value for some stocks comes is based on the stock's dividend rather than its share price. Many companies, including famous large companies, are slow-growing and their share prices are not very volatile. But investors seek them due to dividend payouts.
So basing the compensation on share price doesn't always work. Not to mention that there has been many cases of executives taking action to artificially increase share prices for bonuses and other compensation to the detriment of the future earning potential of the company. This is wrong and leads to trouble.
Executive compensation is a very complicated thing these days and it's a very serious matter. Is Kotick's compensation justified? It depends on many factors.
Shareholder value for some stocks comes is based on the stock's dividend rather than its share price. Many companies, including famous large companies, are slow-growing and their share prices are not very volatile. But investors seek them due to dividend payouts.
So basing the compensation on share price doesn't always work. Not to mention that there has been many cases of executives taking action to artificially increase share prices for bonuses and other compensation to the detriment of the future earning potential of the company. This is wrong and leads to trouble.
Executive compensation is a very complicated thing these days and it's a very serious matter. Is Kotick's compensation justified? It depends on many factors.
perryfarrell
Member
Corporate greed apologism? How unsurprising.
Sounds to me he's answering the question: How did Kotick make as much as he did? Not the question: Why should he make as much as he did?
Sounds to me he's answering the question: How did Kotick make as much as he did? Not the question: Why should he make as much as he did?
First episode of this I've seen, and my immediate questions are; what is Pachters office supposed to be? Is it filmed in his regular jobs' office, or at a random office in a random building where he films these episodes? If it's his regular office, wouldn't his bosses and co-workers wonder why he has tons of games in his office, along with weekly visits from a film crew?
If it's a random office, does he visit it once a week for a couple of hours to film these episodes, and the stuff in the office is just for show/props?
As for the CEO thing -- I think it's sort of weird that a CEO of a game company makes 65 million in a year, while country leaders make far, far less. Obviously, the leaders of most countries aren't directly affiliated or responsible with most/any of the companies and organizations that can make money, but I think the duties of a CEO and a President/country leader, on a peaceful level, are somewhat similar (To a degree!). Both represent a board that make the large, sweeping decisions, but aren't affiliated or responsible for what gets made. They set the direction, or destination, but aren't in control or responsible or even affiliated with how it gets done, or how to get there.
That direction, or destination will most likely decide the fate of the company. They do far less than the average employee, probably, but their decisions are extremely important.
A human being needs proper motivation and incentives to put a lot of thought and effort into his decision making - and what better way than to make the reward millions of dollars? If the decision maker of a company made a normal, average wage, I don't think that person would be motivated to properly lead it, and care about it, in most cases. It would also completely change the CEO culture.
Imagine, you've been the CEO of a company for a couple of years, you make the same, average wage as everyone else, so you're not financially motivated to any large degree, you've bought and sold tons of companies in the past, and have to buy another company today; since this is just a regular thing, how much thought time would you dedicate to which company you'd buy? Minutes? Hours?
Since you "only" make an average wage, and your decision won't affect your wage, would you really care if the company went under? What if your decisions could lead to you making more money, more success, etc? How much thought time would you then dedicate to which company you'd buy?
Ideally, a person would care enough about other humans and their jobs, but I don't think the average person would care that much. They might, for a few hours, but it wouldn't constantly be on their mind. Money would.
I have very, very little knowledge about business and CEO culture, though.
If it's a random office, does he visit it once a week for a couple of hours to film these episodes, and the stuff in the office is just for show/props?
As for the CEO thing -- I think it's sort of weird that a CEO of a game company makes 65 million in a year, while country leaders make far, far less. Obviously, the leaders of most countries aren't directly affiliated or responsible with most/any of the companies and organizations that can make money, but I think the duties of a CEO and a President/country leader, on a peaceful level, are somewhat similar (To a degree!). Both represent a board that make the large, sweeping decisions, but aren't affiliated or responsible for what gets made. They set the direction, or destination, but aren't in control or responsible or even affiliated with how it gets done, or how to get there.
That direction, or destination will most likely decide the fate of the company. They do far less than the average employee, probably, but their decisions are extremely important.
A human being needs proper motivation and incentives to put a lot of thought and effort into his decision making - and what better way than to make the reward millions of dollars? If the decision maker of a company made a normal, average wage, I don't think that person would be motivated to properly lead it, and care about it, in most cases. It would also completely change the CEO culture.
Imagine, you've been the CEO of a company for a couple of years, you make the same, average wage as everyone else, so you're not financially motivated to any large degree, you've bought and sold tons of companies in the past, and have to buy another company today; since this is just a regular thing, how much thought time would you dedicate to which company you'd buy? Minutes? Hours?
Since you "only" make an average wage, and your decision won't affect your wage, would you really care if the company went under? What if your decisions could lead to you making more money, more success, etc? How much thought time would you then dedicate to which company you'd buy?
Ideally, a person would care enough about other humans and their jobs, but I don't think the average person would care that much. They might, for a few hours, but it wouldn't constantly be on their mind. Money would.
I have very, very little knowledge about business and CEO culture, though.
It's his normal office, and I'm pretty sure his employer is aware of his side-gig.
Doc Holliday
SPOILER: Columbus finds America
I don't have a problem with how much a CEO gets paid as long as the workers aren't getting screwed. Because honestly if Kotick quits tomorrow activision will go on just the same. But what happens if every dev quits tomorrow?