I'm afraid I have to disagree massively with you on this article.
1. He should be exceptional at coming up with new business ideas.
Not necessarily. As a CEO he needs to keep a broader view of the entire company and all its parts. It becomes Kotick's job to identify the good ideas, which he should help foster within Activision-Blizzard (AB), and then finds ways to implement then. Kotick is dealing with a huge businesses and it would be almost impossible for him to manage these directly, which is why he would have advisors. This is particularly evident in AB as in the recent interview he even mentions that his only contact with Brutal Legend and its development was through someone else. Granted he should be able to come up with ideas to take the business forward, and I imagine that he played a considerably part in the Activision Vivendi merger, which is why he was elected to CEO of the subsequent merged company. All because we only here about the 'bad' ideas which spawn within AB doesn't mean there aren't good ones. Kotick been a CEO in Activision since 1991 all the way up to it overtaking EA as the largest publisher.
2. He should be good at finding and attracting talent, and at inspiring and motivating his people.
This is not an issue for Activision, as Kotick highlights in the recent Edge interview, Infinity Ward received 5,000 CVs in the last six months. Although the 38 employees that left them was a big blow, there certainty wasn't a shortage to replace them. As a massive publisher with a numerous subsidiary developers they would have the ability to pick from the best of the market, as people would want to work for them, even if it's only for a few years to beef up their CVs. This happened despite all the bad publicity they receive about working conditions.
Looking at the first of companies which Activision bought prior to the big merger, [ur]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activision#Current[/url], they bought a load of good studios. Although it is a risk, as it is with any business when buying a external studios, that the culture will clash with that of the acquirer However, Activision are seemingly doing a good job because if they weren't they wouldn't of produced game like Singularity, Prototype, DJ Hero and Blur. Although they may not be the best, they were still decent games with their fans.
In the press side Kotick's ability to motivate people may be a bit lacking, but not being privy to all of Activision's internal memos and emails, I wouldn't dare speculate of what happens and how the structure works. I worked for a big company and it was always funny to see how the press/public perceive your actions.
3. He needs to possess a keen understanding of the gaming industry.
He does. In the Edge review it goes through his history in the market, which was why he was able to make criticisms of EA structure. He could do this from had first hand experience. Again, he was probably instrumental in the merger to create Activision-Blizzard and he also had the knowledge not to mess with Blizzard and its IPs (Starcraft 2 and Cataclysm don't full short of Blizzard traditional standards). He also notes in the Edge interview that Blizzard hasn't increased the subscription since its beginning, something which Kotick could easily do if he wanted.
Yes, he has arguably made lots of gaffs recently, but that doesn't change the fact he has been CEO in Activision since 1991 and then in the merger . You don't last this long by being an idiot and not knowing the market. Again, he would also have advisors, because it would be impossible for him to juggle AB whilst keeping up-to-date on the day-to-day news in the industry.
Remember when Kotick said that, "With respect to the franchises that don't have the potential to be exploited every year across every platform with clear sequel potential that can meet our objectives of over time becoming $100 million plus franchises, that's a strategy that has worked very well for us."
I interpret this quote differently. To me he saying "we don't green light new IPs unless it has opportunities for sequels." This is not saying "we don't green light new IP FULL STOP." To me, they are merely on the lookout for games which are intended to be created as Trilogies (such as Mass Effect with EA and Gears of War). They don't just want single stand alone games. Also, remember that Activision were the ones that funded Brutal legend's development, although they dropped it because of Schafer's, alleged, inability to meet deadlines, they still took the initial risk on it.
4. He should be skilled at public relations.
To be fair the PR department clearly have an impossible task here. Being one of the few people who seemingly read the entire Edge interview with Kotick, I felt that, overall, he came out of it quite well. It was just that sites would only report what a couple of lines from the interview and out of context. People assumed Kotick was just bad-mouthing people when in reality he was merely responding to questions. Edge brought up his relationship with developers, which prompted the response about Schafer. Edge brought up Infinity Ward, which prompted a response (and I might add we can't be certain about what truly went on here).
But to sum it up, you started with Funk's quote and I'll end on it.
"Let's be honest here. We could write the news story 'Bobby Kotick Opens Door for Old Lady' and people would *still* be furious with him."
It doesn't matter what happens with AB, Kotick has become the face of it and any bad piece bad news or misinterpreted quote always get directed back to him. Rightly or wrongly. We in the general populace are not privy to all his day-to-day functions and can't really make an accurate assessment of him. But we do know he's been the CEO of Activision which, arguably, overtook EA as the largest publisher. You don't achieve that by being an idiot. Any number of incompetent CEO would have destroyed Activision and Blizzard, but both are seemingly prospering right now.
This might be a bit messy because I didn't write the points in order. And, no, I don't work for Activision in case anyone cares.
