Comments on: Former NYT CEO paid $23.7M exit package; company netted $3M over the past 4 years

By: Matt Volatile

Matt Volatile — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 21:00:00 +0000

How can someone get a “performance bonus” that pays nearly double the earnings of the entire company? Who writes these insane contracts?

By: rabb046

rabb046 — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 20:59:00 +0000

Interesting concept. CEO’s are overpaid because if the weren’t their companies could have lost even MORE money. Sounds good on a resume, doesn’t it.

By: rabb046

rabb046 — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 20:55:00 +0000

Anybody can do this.
I assume you have, right?

By: Ito Kagehisa

Ito Kagehisa — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:08:00 +0000

I just spent a few minutes on Google and all the surveys I found say you are a bare-faced liar. But that’s just google, not me… I myself anxiously await your publication of your sources.

By: Teller

Teller — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:03:00 +0000

No. It was obvious how you meant it.

By: Ito Kagehisa

Ito Kagehisa — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:02:00 +0000

Well, sure we do! It’s expensive to build an army of brainwashing robots to take over the world. And the cost of genetically engineered super-hookers is staggering.

What, you don’t want those things? You aren’t a corporate CEO, then. Not in your heart. You don’t really matter at all.

By: donovan acree

donovan acree — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 15:31:00 +0000

Absolutely! Stocks are clearly a good indicator of a companies actual performance and value. Just ask Enron, Global Crossing, et al. Stocks aren’t simply the value the public places on a company. They are clearly the same as having a healthy net.

By: donovan acree

donovan acree — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 15:21:00 +0000

This is clear evidence that the Times has no idea how to run a business and are already on the way out.

By: pjcamp

pjcamp — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 13:34:00 +0000

I guess I should put sarcasm tags around things I write. This CEO was clearly not the best but was paid as if.

By: MichaelZWilliamson

MichaelZWilliamson — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 12:35:00 +0000

I’d like to point out that in surveys taken during the protests, between half and a majority of “the 99%” supported bailouts for failed corporations.

This is why no one in any segment of the argument takes the Occupussies seriously.

By: MichaelZWilliamson

MichaelZWilliamson — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 12:21:00 +0000

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/11/28/maximizing-shareholder-value-the-dumbest-idea-in-the-world/ as posted above, this comes into play. There’s more concern over stock value than actual accomplishment or profitability.

By: MichaelZWilliamson

MichaelZWilliamson — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 12:20:00 +0000

No, it’s not a good paper, and I suspect if you read articles on subjects you’re familiar with, you’ll agree. They’re incapable of getting basic facts correct, and haven’t been a relevant source of news in at least two decades.

By: MichaelZWilliamson

MichaelZWilliamson — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 12:18:00 +0000

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/11/28/maximizing-shareholder-value-the-dumbest-idea-in-the-world/ Maybe Forbes can help you.

By: Spinkter

Spinkter — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 11:34:00 +0000

Yes, it is frustrating. Ridiculous, even. But there’s not much a third party can do about a contract between two unrelated parties, especially since there is no requirement to make public the terms of a private contract.

If an employer decides to enter into a stupid contract that doesn’t protect the company’s interests (which appears to definitely be the case in the contract between the NYT and Robinson), then it’s up to the company’s owners to rectify the problem.

That owners don’t do something to fix this situation is the real problem. There’s a lot of brother-in-lawing going on at the executive level. But we (as unrelated third parties) are back to the problem of not being able to do much about it.

By: Spinkter

Spinkter — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 11:21:00 +0000

In my case, my employers were pretty good at protecting their interests. Had we not come to an agreement, they would have simply rejected the terms. And, yes, there are performance points in my contract that are very specifically spelled out.

But that’s the point, isn’t it? The terms are spelled in the contract, and those terms are binding. It appears as though the NYT’s contract with Robinson’s didn’t tie her pay to any measure of company performance. Why this is so is anybody’s guess, but it’s the NYT that should be taken to task for negotiating a stupid contract, not Robinson.

By: Gatto

Gatto — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 06:58:00 +0000

I think hiring the merely adequate and paying the people on the line better, or even returning profit to investors, would be better for these companies over all. There are others above who make this point better than me, but i suspect there are good people who could do this job for 300k a year, and would be happy doing it.

Instead, there is a mentality at work that believes “more is better”. Just like when people buy name-brand products that are more expensive with the exact same ingredients as the generics. Or, “priming” scenarios when people are told a product costs more, and they wind up more satisfied then when they are told the same product costs less. If there’s a provable correlation between excessive CEO pay, and actual profits — I’d love to see it.

By: Nagurski

Nagurski — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 05:36:00 +0000

2. It looks like around $1.7M is stock options, which is pretty far from ‘most’ of the package.
3. How is the NYT profitable if they’re averaging less than $1M per year and paying her around $3M a year?
1. Oh, I can blame people, baby. Promising the moon to the head of the company without having that represent some fraction of wealth generated for the company is stupid. The Times had several bad hiccups trying to roll out a profitable web based model during her tenure. Money promised and paid to her represents money that couldn’t be spent paying people who could actually help the business innovate and adapt more quickly to changing patterns of news and entertainment consumption. If chief executive types are such brilliant visionaries and business people that they deserve such rich pay, they ought to be confident enough to be paid entirely in stock and options, so they sink or rise with the company.

By: acidrain69

acidrain69 — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 03:02:00 +0000

Nice misdirection. How can you prove that would have happened when it didn’t? She could have single handedly repelled an alien invasion that never happened, thus saving the Times and everyone on earth. It doesn’t mean she earned more money than the company earned for the time period.

By: Diogenes

Diogenes — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 02:57:00 +0000

Gwarsh, you’re right! What were they thinking only giving her $27 million? The poor thing was underpaid!

By: Petzl

Petzl — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 02:39:00 +0000

It’s not all negotiation skillz. It’s also about cronyism. Who gives the CEOs sweetheart contracts? The board. Who comprises the board? Present and former CEOs.

By: pjcamp

pjcamp — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 01:28:00 +0000

Well, if you didn’t pay them like that, how would you hire the best?

By: twianto

twianto — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 00:30:00 +0000

Better than the local paper where I’m from ;-)

They are still one of the better dailies in terms of quality and quantity. Also, they have to actually earn all their money themselves, unlike some Murdoch papers or The Guardian (which is and always has been cross-subsidized by tabloids within the Guardian Media Group).

I say bravo (brava, really) for keeping a good paper profitable.

By: Joe The Wizard

Joe The Wizard — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 00:25:00 +0000

Man, I could really use 23.7M right now.

By: BarBarSeven

BarBarSeven — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 00:17:00 +0000

Have you actually read the New York Times recently? The amount of errors and outright bizarre staff writing is really out of step with it’s history. It’s not gotten as bad as the tabloids, but for a publication that self-declares itself as a ‘paper of record,’ it’s quite embarassing.

By: jimh

jimh — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 23:58:00 +0000

“The company, based in New York…”
…has announced, as part of a package deal, its imminent relocation to Buford, WY.

By: twianto

twianto — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 23:32:00 +0000

1. That contract was signed before she got the job, right? How can you blame anyone here?
2. Most of it is in stock options, not cash, meaning that sum is pure theory right now.
3. She could still have been a competent CEO; you have to ask if the NYT would be profitable at all with a less competent CEO given the current climate with newspapers failing left and right. The NYT has one of the best news websites, above and beyond the competition. Looks like a good strategy to me.

Or not, who knows.

By: travtastic

travtastic — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 23:07:00 +0000

Did you promise to ruin the company, and ruin it harder the more they pay you?

By: travtastic

travtastic — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 23:05:00 +0000

Resumes are accepted by telegram between 1pm and 3pm.

By: travtastic

travtastic — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 22:52:00 +0000

Oh. Totally.

By: travtastic

travtastic — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 22:50:00 +0000

You know, this actually explains a lot.

I can’t wait to one day tell stories about this kind of thing to my grandkids. “Well, you see, it used to be super legal to steal money. What? Oh, they were made out of ground-up dead trees. You read them.”