Updated: Activision CEO Earned $64.9 Million in 2012

StewShearerOld

Geekdad News Writer
Jan 5, 2013
5,449
0
0
Updated: Activision CEO Earned $64.9 Million in 2012



Bobby Kotick made more in 2012 than the CEO's of Walmart, Goldman Sachs and Walt Disney Co.

Update: Upon further clarification of the compensation report, Activision has explained to us that approximately $55.9 million of Kotick's reported earnings - which, as we note below, comes in the form of stock - is actually a 5-year performance-based figure, rather than a single year guaranteed sum. The number was reported on the filing because 2012 is the year in which the agreement was made. Kotick made roughly $8.33 million in actual pay last year, which falls in line with his prior year earnings.

Original article: The high pay garnered by CEO's around the world is a point of fury for many people, in no small part because it tends to rise well above the wages earned by the staff working beneath them. Walmart, for instance, paid its CEO $20.7 million in 2012. Its employees, on the other the hand, would need a life span <a href=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/23/walmart-wages-to-ceo-annual-salary_n_3140618.html>comparable to Yoda to even approach that sum. The CEO of Goldman Sachs, in turn, earned $21 million in 2012 while the CEO of Walt Disney Co brought home a healthy $40.2 million. These massive compensation packages have nothing, however, on the pay of one Bobby Kotick. The CEO of Activision Blizzard reportedly earned a whopping $64.9 million in 2012.

Despite Activision's rate of growth slowing compared to 2011, Kotick's personal compensation rose exponentially. His base salary doubled, jumping up to $2 million. This was then bolstered by $2.5 million in bonus pay and another $4.4 million from Activision Blizzard's annual incentive plan. The vast bulk of his earnings, to the tune of nearly $56 million, came from stock awards Kotick picked up in 2012. Comparatively, Kotick's compensation in 2011, sans stock, was a more modest $8.3 million. Activision itself earned a net revenue of $4.856 billion in 2012, with $1.149 billion in net income.

To be fair, even with a slower growth rate, Activison had a decent year, perhaps validating some of Kotick's rewards. Even so, it's always a bit of a shock to see such numbers attached to the compensation of a single person, and while Kotick was making millions game developers in the United States earned a less epic average salary <a href=http://www.gamespot.com/news/average-2012-us-dev-salary-84000-6406397>of about $84,000. Granted, that's not a paltry sum compared to many other professions, but it still represents a fairly vast gulf between the man on top and the people actually making the games that Activision sells.

Source: <a href=http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/26/us-activision-ceopay-idUSBRE93P1C920130426>Reuters


Permalink
 

Abomination

New member
Dec 17, 2012
2,939
0
0
At 80,000 a head you could hire 800 people on that salary.

How do these companies justify layoffs again?
 

Adam Jensen_v1legacy

I never asked for this
Sep 8, 2011
6,651
0
0
If he was an actual gamer he's earn a lot more. These CEO's don't really know much about their own market. They just look at the numbers and play it safe.

But this is still too much for one man who's doing the least amount of work. This is why capitalism sucks. Working people are being fucked over by the suits.
 

Kargathia

New member
Jul 16, 2009
1,657
0
0
Adam Jensen said:
If he was an actual gamer he's earn a lot more. These CEO's don't really know much about their own market. They just look at the numbers and play it safe.
Debatable - if a skillset can be seen as zero-sum, then actual competence would detract from "personal money-grubbing".

I do love the picture though, it fits the story.

Adam Jensen said:
But this is still too much for one man who's doing the least amount of work. This is why capitalism sucks. Working people are being fucked over by the suits.
Yes.
 

FFP2

New member
Dec 24, 2012
741
0
0
I hate capitalism so much. Money isn't everything.

Oh well, at least we have the people that work at CD Projekt, Valve and Ninty. They deserve salaries like this.
 

Andy Shandy

Fucked if I know
Jun 7, 2010
4,797
0
0
Man, that is a lot of money just for him managing to keep his mouth shut last year.
 

Exocet

Pandamonium is at hand
Dec 3, 2008
726
0
0
We are staring into the eyes of evil itself!

Also, Bobby, cut the crap, half you salary and hire dev teams with balls please.
 

Charli

New member
Nov 23, 2008
3,445
0
0
That's... nothing short of shameless. I'm sorry, what kind of lifestyle justifies rewarding yourself like that?

You'd have to be doing the job of over 200 people to even think of it.
 

CriticalMiss

New member
Jan 18, 2013
2,024
0
0
Wow, $65 million is almost enough to develop one level of Call of Duty. And think of all of the developers that could have been given jobs rather than being laid off, said developers could then make some money the majority of which would get snatched up by Kotick's greasy claws.
 

rapidoud

New member
Feb 1, 2008
547
0
0
Abomination said:
At 80,000 a head you could hire 800 people on that salary.

How do these companies justify layoffs again?
American public allows companies to do this.

Really no one else to blame; developers will always take as much as the market will allow them, and American markets always have at least x5 developer bonuses on average compared to any other market (in USD).
 

ron1n

New member
Jan 28, 2013
401
0
0
It's a shame capitalism doesn't have some kind of in-built salary capping.

I mean honestly, if you're earning between $5-$10 million a year, what possible case could you make for needing more?

Even worse is the recipients are almost always the most useless human beings imaginable.

Seriously, give that fucking money to cancer researches who get results or the nurses/paramedics/doctors that save lives, or the soldiers who get wounded/killed protecting people.

Sigh. How did the human race come to this?
 

Fractral

Tentacle God
Feb 28, 2012
1,243
0
0
To be fair, I'd imagine being the CEO of a large company is a pretty hard job. Hence why not everyone is one.
That said, $65 million is a wee bit excessive. I can only guess that since Activision has grown so much under him that he feels he deserves the Lion's share of the profits.
 

Jumwa

New member
Jun 21, 2010
641
0
0
Obscene amounts of wealth for one person. Just obscene.

And the notion of "incentive pay" or bonuses just for doing your job? If it really worked we'd all be getting it. Instead only the people holding the purse strings receive that cash, and we can see through to what it really is: lining your own pockets.
 

RA92

New member
Jan 1, 2011
3,079
0
0
Whatever your outlook, you would be mad not to see American CEOs' salaries as anything but overinflated.

Even funnier is how if they fuck up the whole company, they give themselves massive severance paychecks.
 
Apr 5, 2008
3,736
0
0
How much did Activision make under his leadership last year? Why is his earning such a wage for the top job (compared with the workers at the bottom) any different (or more controversial) than any other industry?

Don't mistake me. Activision are a horrid company that only EA is able to out-evil. They make horrid games and ruin the industry, but muppets buy them so they make billions. But if he has brought in tidy profits for Activision, then clearly the shareholders believe he is worth that much money.
 

Abomination

New member
Dec 17, 2012
2,939
0
0
DVS BSTrD said:
Abomination said:
At 80,000 a head you could hire 800 people on that salary.

How do these companies justify layoffs again?
Because If we don't pay the them what they're worth, the best tallent will go elsewhere.
Does he bring more to the company than 800 designers would?

Because even an idiot could run a company with 400 more designers and earn half as much and turn an ever greater profit when you have 64 million to play with.

This is an example of someone being paid far more than their actual worth to the company.
 

omicron1

New member
Mar 26, 2008
1,729
0
0
CEOs' salaries are not based on compensation or work done. They're a business expense.

A CEO, used right, can turn a company around or double it profits. Moreso, perhaps, than any other single investment, because he chooses the company's path. Obviously everyone wants a piece of this, so successful CEOs aren't so much hired as they are bid upon.

Hence the high salary.

So, um... It's not Kotick's fault. Although I'm sure he doesn't mind.