Hacker News Reader

Comment by devy | Hacker News Reader

The current CEO of Mozilla Corporation and Chairwoman of Mozilla Foundation (the parent organization of Mozilla Corporation) earned a total compensation of $2,458,350 [1] on a $436 million company revenue on 2018, or half a percent of the company's revenue. I can't find 2019 stats, but on a company that's not doing well, CEO's comp seems high.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell_Baker#cite_note-14

View on HN

I can't think of a good reason why Mitchell Baker should keep her job. I'm fine with competitive executive compensation, but what has she done other than lay off the people doing the work?

How else do you justify their salary. Increasing revenue? please.

> Increasing revenue?

Yes. Mozilla Corporation, The wholly owned subsidiary of Non-profit Mozilla Foundation, is a for-profit organization and taxable entity. [1]

For any for-profit organization, increasing profit is one of the major responsibility of the CEO.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation

I think the parent means that she failed at this. At the very least, her salary went up while Firefox market share went down.

No I meant that I order to justify her salary she needs to either increase profits or reduce costs. Looks like she went with reducing costs ...

I have no idea what normal CEO salaries look like as a percentage of revenue. I'm not even sure if that's the right way to measure it. But it doesn't sound crazy high to me?

And the worse your company is doing, the more important it is to find a good CEO and the harder it will be for you to attract a good one. So you can even make an argument for why CEOs that joined companies that are doing badly might be getting paid more on average.

Fire her and hire a new CEO then. Why would you raise an under-performing CEO's takeaway ?

How do you know she is under-performing? It's not like Mozilla was profitable before she joined.

I wondered how much it was, and did a quick search. Apparently Sundar Pichai (Alphabet) had a total comp equivalent to ~0.13% of the revenue, and Tim Cook (Apple) was at 0.05%. So Mozilla's CEO is at 3 to 10 times more than those two examples, while arguably underperforming them.

I really don't think it's that simple. Why should CEO salary depend on revenue? Should the CEO of a startup that doesn't have customers yet make $0?

Mozilla, Google and Apple are no startups.

Of course startups CEO will have different goals - company at different stages of their growth will have very different goals and tangentially they need different CEOs with different skill sets to achieve those different goals.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com