From https://reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/1hokr0c/mozilla_chair_pay_vs_firefox_market_share_2023/m4aca4j/:

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
  • wellheh@lemmy.sdf.org
    0·
    17 days ago

    You know what else coincides with 2009? Google Chrome’s release- a browser by a company with far more resources. I’m absolutely not a supporter of CEO pay going up in general- this post is just incredibly lazy

    • NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ@lemmy.world
      0·
      17 days ago

      I dont feel the post is saying the two are correlated, more so simply that despite Firefox doing worse year over year, the CEOs compensation continues to rise.

      • wellheh@lemmy.sdf.org
        0·
        17 days ago

        In other words, the marketshare isn’t tied to the ceo? I don’t see the point in putting that out there without any context, like is lowering the ceo’s compensation supposed to magically give Mozilla more market? Do they want a new ceo? How much is Mozilla making? What’s the end goal? Right now they’re competing with Microsoft and Google- it’s not exactly fair competition.

        • teejay@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          17 days ago

          Totally! How dare OP post some visual data without having detailed plans about how to solution a company’s various business issues. Super lazy.

        • NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ@lemmy.world
          0·
          17 days ago

          It’s just indicative of where their priorities lie. Dude’s compensation is like 3.5% of their total development budget. Meanwhile they’re being absolutely dominated by their competitors. Maybe instead of working on their golden parachutes, they should focus more on not being obliterated in the next 24-48 months.

      • Spezi@feddit.org
        0·
        17 days ago

        As much as I’m opposed to Mozilla CEOs paying out absurd amounts, we still have to acknowledge that Mozilla has way more revenue streams nowadays than they had a few years ago.

        So a sinking market share of one of their (free and open source) products doesn’t mean that the company is making less money overall.

    • underisk@lemmy.ml
      0·
      17 days ago

      Does it make sense for a CEO to be paid more while the business they manage dwindles?

      • wellheh@lemmy.sdf.org
        0·
        17 days ago

        In a vacuum, no- but we all know life is more complicated than this chart. For example, how do they compare to the market rate of other CEOs? Are they increasing profitability (something marketshare alone doesn’t say)? I’m not just gonna say “lower ceo pay = problem solved”- we have to do better. CEO pay is a systemic problem and needs a systemic solution- imo it should be capped across the spectrum or based on lowest employee pay but I’m sure I’m in the minority

        • underisk@lemmy.ml
          0·
          17 days ago

          The situation is always more complicated than a single graph can represent. Which is why I’m taking this in consideration with other context, and it’s solidifying my impression that Mozilla is failing and I need to find a firefox alternative before they shit it up further chasing money to pay their CEO a ridiculously inflated “market rate”. What good is some theoretical increased profitability (they’re a non-profit!) if all it does is serve to further inflate already inflated compensation packages?

          • wellheh@lemmy.sdf.org
            0·
            16 days ago

            Tbh there really isn’t any replacement, which tells you a lot about how profitable browsers that care even a little about privacy vs browsers that are just supported by bigger companies and have better marketing. And yes, there’s a bunch of smaller browsers around but they’re mostly reskins and die overnight without Google and Mozilla to carry the major load. It’s sad but privacy is not as popular as compatibility with every website and when you’re the default, you’re compatible everywhere. I’ve been around since Netscape and I don’t see a way to change this at all. Mozilla literally relies on Google ad money to stay afloat.

          • Syntha@sh.itjust.works
            0·
            17 days ago

            There is no Firefox alternative. There is Firefox and there is Chrome. Everything else is just a fancy reskin of either one of them.