Marketing Science Institute

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
231605455
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2020
Forms available
Form 990 2020
Location
Cambridge, MA, USA
Phone
6174912060
Rating
52
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Research Institutes and Public Policy Analysis

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$827,620
Expenses
$926,147
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BARBARA KAHN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • BRIAN KOSTANTIN (VICE PRESIDENT/INTERIM CFO)
  • CHERYL TOTO (FORMER CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • BRIAN KOSTANTIN (VICE PRESIDENT/INTERIM CFO): $257,952 total reported compensation
  • KATE GREY (MANAGING DIRECTOR): $196,226 total reported compensation
  • CHERYL TOTO (FORMER CEO): $189,820 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Marketing science institute is dedicated to bridging the gap betweeen marketing science theory and business practice. The institute is a corporate-membership based organization with leading researchers from universities worldwide participating in msi research programs.

What it reported doing in 2020

Dissemination of marketing knowledge through approximately twenty-five publications, including research reports, monographs and books, electronic publications distributed via our website, and presentations and meetings of marketing practitioners

Operating model

Revenue model
Membership-supported. 89% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 95% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

MIXED - Most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 48
  • Transparency & Controls: 56
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 6
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 61.2%; rating input score 61
  • Program expense ratio: 41.4%; rating input score 41
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.42 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 86.7%; rating input score 87; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Pass
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 38.3%; rating input score 38; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -11.9%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 99.5%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -12.8% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -15.3% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -22.2% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 61.2% of revenue deployed · 41.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 11 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $383K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $258K · 14 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 30 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2015 to 2020
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 41/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 7/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 38/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 12/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.