- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
Total 2022 pay: $6,903,089
Total 2023 pay: $6,260,072 - a $643,017 decrease
Base chair pay: $600,000
2023 chair bonuses and other incentives: $5,622,600
Sources:
For comparison, here are other executive salaries ($0 bonuses for each)
| Executive name | Title | Total Pay (2023) |
|---|---|---|
| MARK SURMAN | PRESIDENT & EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR | 715,143 |
| J. BOB ALOTTA | SVP, GLOBAL PROGRAMS | 508,138 |
| ANGELA PLOHMAN | COO, SECRETARY & TREASURER | 452,234 |
| ASHLEY BOYD | SVP, GLOBAL ADVOCACY | 427,701 |
| ZHILUN PANG | DIRECTOR OF FINANCE | 273,069 |
| DAVID WALKER | SENIOR COUNSEL | 268,565 |
| LAINIE DECOURSY | DIRECTOR, ORG EFFECTIVENESS | 267,028 |
| JUAN BARANI | SENIOR DIRECTOR, GIFT PLANNING | 262,879 |
| STEPHANIE WRIGHT | SR PROGRAM MANAGER, MOZFEST | 236,785 |
You must log in or register to comment.
Usually I find these kinds of “non profit CEOs shouldn’t make money” things kind of annoying but honestly I don’t see any argument for a CEO to make more than a couple million regardless of context.
Yeah I’m not against the CEO earning similar amounts to those of organisations doing similar things and bringing in similar amounts of money… But those CEOs, too, are compensated disproportionately.
Yeah I’m not against the CEO earning similar amounts to those of organisations doing similar things and bringing in similar amounts of money
This is the exact argument boards of directors (which are made of other CEOs) use to excuse continually ratcheting up CEO pay, which their own boards in turn use to excuse ratcheting up their pay. It’s the huge grift of the CEO good ol’ boys club.
Yeah and the reason they get away with it is because a single person’s (exorbitant) pay in the end hardly affect what’s left for the shareholders, whereas giving all employees raises costs a lot more.
Yeah, you need a good and competent CEO and that’s especially important for a non profit. But most of those salaries are just extreme. Is it really impossible to find good people without paying them multi million salaries?
Remember people, 12M a year is over 32.000 a day. Every day.
People live on 32k a year.
Yeah that’s fucking insane. 2 million is over the top even
yeah, for profit ceos shouldn’t make money either. most ceos are useless at best.
deleted by creator
He is obviously way too highly paid by an insane amount, but where are these people going? There’s no way they’re all going to Chrome, right?
Chrome, Safari, Edge (which is chromium anyways).
According to this 3x as many people use Opera over Firefox when it comes to phone usage worldwide. https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/mobile/worldwide
The market share plot looks suspiciously clean, where are those numbers from?
Edit: looks like they’re from page view data. I know I spoof my browser to show chrome for better compatibility, I wonder how common that is among Firefox users.
I spoof my browser (Librewolf) as Firefox for privacy and I don’t encounter issues from not reporting my user agent as Chrome/Chromium. I think it’s pretty uncommon for a website to not work on Firefox, so I don’t see how this is necessary. The Chrome Mask extension is meant to be used on a per-site basis.
Do you use this extension? it allows you to do that on a site-by-site basis. Maybe only do it for sites with compatibility issues? You can report them right from the extension.
Also, I was curious if users were going down or if chrome was growing faster. Looks like it is going down, but not as much as the market share would suggest.
deleted by creator
Doesn’t matter, all the forks combined make up a fraction of FF.
Plus people moving to forks still hurts Mozilla
deleted by creator
The argument is if you don’t pay a CEO enough, they will go elsewhere where they are paid more. I don’t know whether that is a good argument or not, but (at least some) CEOs have a skill set critical to the success of an organization. It would be interesting to know how the pay of CEOs in general has changed over time. That would tell you if this is shitty or not. My expectation is that it is somewhere in the middle leaning toward acceptable
I don’t like that your graph key indicates the pay line is in $US millions then the axis is in millions not units. Indicating that the values are in millions of millions which seems unlikely
Honestly I could care less about CEO salaries or company politics. I care about the service they provide. In this case the service is bad.
Probably not a coincidence that the share plummets around the same time as the smartphone explosion.
I’d be curious to see just desktop browsers, to see how much there’s really an exodus of Firefox users vs. new devices being added that restrict third-party browsers.
Also salary should be inflation-adjusted.
Neither probably changes the graph too much though.
Right, Firefox has the same situation with Chrome on mobile, as it had with Internet Explorer in Desktop.
I mean the graph starts in 09, and Chrome launched in 08. I assume that did more to them, but both were probably notable.
Oh wow. Yeah, I always think of Chrome as having been around much longer, but you’re right.
What happened in 2010?
Google released the stable version of Chrome, and funneled significant resources into marketing it. This was the first stage of their strategy - they focused on firstly making a good product, and the squeeze on users only came later (and is probably only just starting in the scheme of things).
How much is the Duck Duck Go CEO earning?
DDG is a private company. Mozilla is nominally a nonprofit but clearly is not running itself like one
Mozilla is a company with a non profit branch
No, Mozilla Foundation is a nonprofit owning a for profit corporation also called Mozilla. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Foundation
I now recommended https://apps.gnome.org/Epiphany/
Or ladybird browser when it is released.
It takes years to build a browser engine, Ladybird isn’t coming anytime soon.
That’s not a browser I would recommend to most people as it’s still in early development and breaks websites all the time. Librewolf/Firefox are better.
Gnome Web is well developed. Works really well on Linux
Is it adjusted for an inflation?
I smell some spurious correlation.
sfgsdgdsgdsgdsgdfs
“barely functional” and it was fantastic
I also wonder how much the shift toward mobile devices in browser market share (>60% today from nearly non-existent 20 years ago) played into declining Firefox market share.
Not only was Chrome lean, clean and fast at the time, it was also the default option on mobile for Android. Same for Safari on iPhone. Since (most?) people use the default option, especially if it worked well during early adoption on mobile, it seems pretty understandable why we see chrome / safari where they are in browser market share.
Anyway, I’m glad we still have options like Firefox, and hope we don’t see decreasing support for the Gecko browser engine associated with the lower market share.
sfgsdgdsgdsgdsgdfs
22% inflation vs 700% increase for the CEO between 2016 and 2022?
Minimum wage went up to $35 an hour, so nothing to see here. /$
But inflation for the wealthy was a lot more than inflation for everybody else. If you earn over a million a year, your income MUST increase by at least 2x PER YEAR in order to stay competitive against the rest of the ruling class! Won’t somebody think of the billionaires!!!
We need our CEO to be the greediest, most unethical, unemphatic selfish prick we can get to try to gobble up as much cash for the company as possible. If we pay any less, the greedy assholes won’t apply and we might get someone who gives some of the value back to the customer
Nobody said this was causal… But also 14x increase is not inflation.
Its just that its a window into whats wrong with mozilla. Ofcourse many other things led to their downfall aswell.
The CEOs salary has almost zero affect on Firefox’s market share.
That decline can be explained relatively simply by two things.
One, people are increasing using mobile devices and very very rarely do they install another browser so they are using Chrome on Android and Safari on Apple devices.
Two, Google was/is using Google dot com to promote chrome. That is not something Mozilla could ever replicate.
Then there is the other bit where Mozilla tries to diversify their revenue sources and the faithful skewer them for it and tell them “just work on Firefox” when it is clear the market is unwilling to pay for a browser at all.
Still, increasing payment while market share is falling seems to be the wrong incentive, doesn’t it?
If you look at it from an incentive view point you have to pay people more to Capitan a sinking ship.
Also worth noting is that market share may or may not be relevant. Android has a higher market share world wide compared to Apple, however Apple users generate more revenue.
All this to say that the op graph is at best an incomplete picture of things designed to rile up people who lack critical thinking.
The point is that Firefox market share isn’t indicative of anything useful.
A better comparison would be something like revenue - if Mozilla makes more money, the CEO can earn more.
Mozilla does a lot more than just Firefox and I’m fact increasing revenue from other sources should have been a priority anyway
What a poor soul, started out only making half a million dollars a year?? 😑
What is a senior director of gift planning and how does that justify a salary of $260k?
They’re probably responsible for spending the nonprofit’s funds in meaningful ways by donating it to smaller projects. There needs to be someone who oversees it and ensures it’s not being wasted.
The irony
The “t” is a typo.
Dude is in charge of animated memes.
Firefox isn’t their only product, but it’s clearly their most popular one so this is very questionable.
Would be even better with info about their other product market share as well, and adjustment for inflation. Wouldn’t change the overall message, but would give less stuff for jerks like me to nitpick.
1.) Market share is a different number from daily active users. You can have increasing daily active users while losing market share if the market balloons like it did in 2012.
2.) Mozilla is a nonprofit to begin with. The goal is not to make money on Firefox or any other projects for that matter. The goal is to make the internet better for everyone. Firefox’s profitability will never have any real impact on Chairman pay.
deleted by creator
