Slashdot Mirror
Amazon.com, The Bodyguard
theodp writes "While the press is running Amazon's standard we-can't-make-our-CEO-accept-more-than-$81,840 line again this year, the e-tailer's recent SEC filing does disclose an interesting new compensation tidbit. On top of what it spends to provide security for its CEO at business facilities and during business travel, Amazon shells out an estimated $1.1 million a year to cover the cost of security arrangements for billionaire CEO Jeff Bezos. Holy Jack Welch, Batman - that's a lot of door desks!"
It's a rich guy who isn't trying that hard to get richer.
Silence is golden... and duct tape is silver.
You miss the point. You have to be OUTRAGED. Or you won't comment, start comment/mod flame wars, and basically drive more traffic to Slashdot.
Public companies are primarily supposed to minimize costs and maximize profit margins to enrich their shareholders. If company money is diverted toward elaborate furnishings, without some profit incentive from the aesthetic value of art, it seems a fairly easy target of criticism. Every penny invested in depreciating or slowly-appreciating assets is money that isn't spent growing the company or some investment with a higher rate of appreciation. Unless it poses a tax benefit greater than a more profitable use of the money, again it's an easy target of criticism.
The thing is that companies are willing to waste money on elaborate trappings for executives--under the pretense that executives are valuable and pleasing them with such perks maintains their presence, which in turn retains the success they bring the company. If the engineering group responsible for designing the products that also make the company successful were to request a Van Gogh or two, they'd obtain the appropriations middle finger of excellence. The spoils of being top dog are sweet indeed.
You'd have to think that with money like the extremely wealthy and extremely popular have, they have very legit security concerns. That's why I didn't like the pie episode. Hate the guy all you want (and in my professional life, I really do despise Bill and MSFT), but whatever you might think of a person, there's no reason to make hi, fear for his life. And for me, when I saw the pie movie, there's a second on Bills face when it looks like he's has the epiphany "Fuck, I'm a potential target for [terrorists | anarchists | crazed anti-indutrialists | ELFers | PETA | someone who thinks I'm a symbol], and this person is about to hit me with something." I saw a real fear of anticipated violence.
And for me that's over the line.
Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm
There's a not that uncommon tax scam for company owners which works as the following...
Think, for a moment, past whatever distaste you have for the fact that some people launch successful businesses and get themselves (and the people who risked money to help) a good (or great) return on that investment.
What do you think it would cost Amazon if something unexpected were to happen to Bezos? A million dollars? Way, way more than that. What do you think it would cost everyone who have a bit of their pension fund invested in Amazon's stock? What do you think it would cost the thousands of vendors, partners, employees, re-sellers, affiliates, freight companies, publishers, and everyone else if Amazon had a big stumble - even if just temporarily - because Bezos got wacked by some addled-brained author who's mad because his crappy book couldn't get out of position 150,000 on the A-list?
Companies with interests that far reaching and of that much significant financial impact on/for so many people are simply buying insurance when they spend such a relatively small amount on protective services for their key figures. A million is a lot of money. But that's nothing compared to what it would cost Amazon if Bezos got killed in a carjacking or got kidnapped in Belize while on vacation. I own some stock in Amazon, and I sure as hell would hope that the company's looking out for the interests of their highest-profile, most important human asset. Sure the company would function without him... but way, way more than a million bucks would go down the toilet if he met a sudden violent end.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
You are talking about the man who directed one of the top internet brands in the world through the bubble burst and into profitability. $1.1 million plus $80k ($1.18 million) for a CEO is chump change. They could double or triple the cost of his security and salary and he'd still be worth it. When you have a CEO that makes your company adapt and grow to new trends as well as Amazon has, paying the CEO less than 0.05% of your company's revenue isn't insane.