In October of 2007 Scott Norman got involved in a discussion at The Invent Blog. You should take a look at that discussion. Note the "Anonymous" postings, which appear to be of suspicious origin.
Since I missed the discussion and the forum is now closed to comments I thought I'd take a moment to respond to Mr. Norman here.
Norman's statements are in italics; my responses follow.
Comment by Scott Norman — October 9, 2007
I’m the founder and president of Millennium Marketing Group (MMG). Our firm has been in business since 1998 and we have an excellent reputation with dozens of product line placements.
"Dozens" of "placements"? That would mean 24, at least, although you make it sound like more. Is this the anonymous "Track Record" of "Successful Placements" you post on your web site? You failed to provide hard evidence of any such "placements" during our lawsuit, although you were under court order to do so. In fact, the salesman who sold me the MMG contract stated that during the period of his employment with MMG, a period of some three years to the middle of 2004, he was aware of only one successful placement by MMG, a concrete form used in the construction industry.
Now, are you stating that all of these "placements" are making money, or is that somewhere down the road? We - myself and the readers of this post - would love to know what they are and be able to contact the lucky owners of these products. You are welcome to provide this information, including web sites, email addresses and detailed histories for immediate publication on this site.
And by the way, the only mention of your "excellent reputation" I have ever seen comes from your own personally written MMG self promotional material. As one of your previous "clients" and someone who has deposed both you personally and your employees under oath, I can state that in fact you have a pretty lousy reputation.
Contrary to the previous post, we are NOT an invention marketing company.
This is a simple but well-calculated matter of semantics. By defining yourself as being "other" than an invention promoter you simply excuse yourself from the reporting requirements of Section 297 of the American Inventors Protection Act. Potential targets of your marketing offers are fully entitled to this federally mandated transparency and yet you cynically deny them this critical information.
We are a full service intellectual property brokerage...
Mr. Norman, what you ARE is determined by what you DO. Stated differently, it is the source of your cash flow that defines your activity. Now, we have no evidence, other than your highly inflated self-promotional statements, that you broker intellectual property on more than a minuscule scale. We do know, however, that you have a commissioned sales force trolling the USPTO for the targeted mailings of thousands of unsolicited marketing sales offers. We know that you write and sell lots of marketing contracts, which are for all intents and purposes worthless to those who purchase them.
And if you beg to differ, I refer you to my previous statement about the absolute need for full disclosure under the tenets of the American Inventors Protection Act. How many solicitations do you make annually? How many contracts do you sell? How many of those result in net income for the inventor? What percentage of your income is from royalty and other agreements? This information is critically important for the inventor seeking to choose a marketing agency, and I would strongly suggest that no rational person should ever take your unsubstantiated word for anything.
I note elsewhere on this site that one of your competitors, Davison Design, has been ordered by the Federal Trade Commission to pay $10.7 million in cash, real estate and investment assets to the FTC, which will distribute the settlement to what it terms "victims" of Davison's fraudulent invention promotion practices. A court ordered AIPA disclosure statement has disappeared from the site, possibly as a part of that settlement, but I'll post the last two sentences of that statement here, which was current as of August 2008:
"The total number of consumers in the last five years who made more money in royalties than they paid, in total, under any and all agreements with Davison, is ten (10). The percentage of Davison's income that came from royalties paid on licenses of consumers products is .001%."
Tough business, isn't it, Mr. Norman? But you're doing MUCH better than Davison, right? How much better? And how exactly would we know?
...with 10 MBA’s and one engineer and attorney (holding a masters of intellectual property law) on staff.
During the period of time cited in my Chronology I interacted with the following people at MMG:
a) A commissioned salesman, who sold me the MMG marketing contract, which was worthless. By his own (later) admission this salesman had no skill set or experience whatsoever in any industry even remotely related to the needs of my product. He received 20% of my $6000 and was promised a royalty if it ever sold. This salesman was my main contact for the duration of my association with MMG, even though I couldn't reach him on the phone most of the time. There was no one else to call.
b) A creative writing major, with no technical, marketing or industrial background, who produced my "Prospectus". This person had been hired by Scott Norman and given the title of "Research Analyst". This writer had no knowledge whatsoever of the office seating industry, or any other industry that I could determine. He was given complete control of my project, insofar as there was any "control". He worked completely by himself, with no input whatsoever from anyone else. Although he would later state that he had spoken with me on the phone a couple of times in fact he had not, and our communication was limited to a couple of emails. In general, he could recall little that was accurate about my project.
This "Research Analyst" never looked at my prototype, and in fact was completely unaware that it even existed and had been sitting in a hallway of the MMG offices where he worked for months.
He and a couple of others worked from a universal "Prospectus" template in turning out hundreds of these things. This person was the sole "researcher" on my project. He accomplished this by initiating web searches on a subject about which he was absolutely clueless. He spent about 20 hours on my project and was paid $250. He relied heavily on written material I had supplied to MMG, and every piece of artwork used came from my own files, submitted on CD, which he couldn't navigate despite having had it in his possession for some six months.
What the creative writer finally submitted to me as a "marketing" piece was an absolute disaster. It contained about 1500 words of original content that was amateurish and of no use. Old photographs of very early stages of the chair had been given prominent display, and important 3D sequences omitted entirely. In the back of the piece were several references to "important" trade shows that had taken place a year previous. It was a mess. I had to do a complete rewrite and graphics reorganization, and even then it wasn't nearly as good as the original project book I had given to MMG at the outset. This is when it became obvious to me that I had a big problem with MMG.
The 20 hours spent by this individual on my project is the sum total of the work I can account for that MMG performed for me over a period of 12 long months. To this I will add the fifteen minutes someone took to assemble a single web page from material I personally provided. I can say this because during my lawsuit Norman was forced by court order to turn over all evidence of any work performed on my behalf. Norman came up with 1) a manilla folder with "Research" scribbled on it in pencil; the folder contained a pile of unsorted, crumpled web pages; 2) a copy of the original prospectus; 3) evidence, but no copy, of the web page and 4) a completely useless "database" which was largely dedicated to manufacturers unrelated to my needs, and which had never been employed in any fashion. That was it.
c) Some office workers, one of whom was called an "executive vice president" and who "developed" the aforementioned single page "web sight" (sic) for me, using graphics and text I personally provided on day one of my contract, in the eleventh month of that contract. I actually had to explain how to copy and paste between documents to these people.
d) And, of course, I met you, Mr. Norman, and I have found you to be a particularly unskilled and disagreeable individual, given to wild exaggerations and outright falsehoods per your next statement, and many others you have personally made to me...
Regarding the previous post, this represents one client out of hundreds...
Mr. Norman, the quality of the "work" you performed for me was so abysmal, the organization of your office such a mess, and your failure to complete contractual agreements so complete that it simply could not have been an aberration. The insinuations you have made both verbally and in court documents since that time that all work on my behalf was in fact satisfactorily performed are insulting, outrageous and completely false. Further, your ongoing attempts to turn the finger of blame on me for this mess and your personal failures are evidence of what I consider to be complete professional and moral bankruptcy.
You are well aware that a significant portion of your "clientele" has been extremely dissatisfied with the poor quality of your "work" (when such "work" is performed at all), your exaggerated claims of actual and probable success and your failure to meet contractual obligations.
And let's face it, some people are just too unsophisticated or embarrassed by their own miscalculations in getting involved with you in the first place to make an issue of it.
...and the claim was proven baseless and thrown out at summary judgment.
Mr. Norman, that is a lie and you know that it is a lie. It's not your first. A summary judgment can only be issued by a judge, and our case was dismissed by mutual consent, out of court, by a mediator. There was no summary judgment. In fact, every motion you made for a summary judgment during the course of the lawsuit was denied by the court. And as for the claim being "proven baseless" (just exactly where and how would this have been proven?) this is another one of your wild delusions, akin to those touting your marketing successes. I invite the reader of this site to examine its content and determine for him or herself whether or not I would bring a "baseless" claim against you at a personal cost of countless hours and tens of thousands of dollars.
We offer a number of commercialization options including venture capital for select projects.
Yeah, well, maybe I should start offering trips to the moon.
If you would like more information about our firm please see our website: http://www.patentmovers.com
Let's start with a few relevant items that do NOT appear on your website. You have a commissioned sales force trolling the USPTO database targeting inventors with hundreds of unsolicited sales offers every month. These boiler plate form letters uniformly extoll the virtues of the victimized inventions, none of which have undergone anything resembling a professional marketing evaluation. You now apparently charge $7500 for your basic marketing "services" which, based upon a ratio of contracts sold to income dollars returned to their purchasers, are worthless. You cynically exploit a loophole in the American Inventors Protection Act which exonerates you from critical reporting requirements about your actual success rate in marketing new inventions. You have had numerous legal problems, not the least of which was a SLAPP suit you filed on a former employee who was so outraged by what he saw taking place within your "business" that he went to the Kansas Attorney General in an attempt to blow the whistle on you. You appear on Ron Riley's Extreme Caution List among other invention promoters of ill repute.
Beyond that, the web site is pretty useless for anyone seeking reliable information about what you really do. Most of the "information" there says nothing and points to empty space. Many claims made on your site when I contracted with MMG were false, particularly those alluding to your actual streams of revenue. And are you serious about this "Accolades" section?
So now you have a "Code of Ethics" page. Mr. Norman, you've got a long way to go with this thing. Maintaining a code of ethics is a lot more complicated than putting up a page with a picture of two hands shaking on a web site. You won't disclose under the requirements of the AIPA, you exaggerate the potential of success in your marketing materials, you attack and threaten to sue anyone who opposes you, you continue to solicit and sell hundreds of worthless marketing contracts... You call this an ethical way of doing business? What are you suggesting that we do, take you at your word for anything you say? Do you really have any idea what that means? You have to have credibility, and outside of your own self promotional material you have none.
Oh, and you are printing a calendar of trade shows. How utterly useful! Is MMG actually attending those shows or is this just filler fluff for the web site? Mr. Norman, do you remember the following letter you personally signed and sent to me on April 17 of 2003:
“Dear Walter:
“We attended the Technology Transfer Conference and Expo, which were held in conjunction with National Manufacturing Week March 3rd through the 6th in Chicago, Illinois. We met with various companies about your patent and a copy of the prospectus was sent to those interested parties. I will keep you updated on any interest we receive on your project. We still remain confident in our efforts to secure a license agreement.”
Now, you will remember that I was just a little upset by this because the "Prospectus", which you as the President of MMG told me was distributed from the 3rd through the 6th of March wasn't even approved until the 27th of March, and in fact no more than a single copy was ever printed some time later. And although I have repeatedly asked for a list of the "contacts" you supposedly made on my behalf, and for which it can be assumed I paid for, you have never given me a single name or phone number. Based upon this letter, and a whole lot of other stuff, do you wonder that I think of you as a liar and a fraud?
Additionally we have actual references of successful clients if you wish to complete the proper due diligence on our firm.
Mr. Norman, I AM A REFERENCE for MMG. I paid for it, both as a "client" and as an adversary in court. Now you can deal with it. Maybe you should have hired a better attorney?
Read the detailed Chronology I post elsewhere on this blog. And as for "due diligence" please remember that I have sued you and deposed both you and your (then) present and former employees under oath at a cost of thousands, and I have a pretty good vantage point as to who you are and what your business practices are all about. Makes me a pretty powerful reference, don't you think?
Love to see those other "references", Mr. Norman. I'll print 'em right here, after I contact them personally and we have a little chat.
Comment by Scott Norman — October 10, 2007
This will serve as my final communnication (sic) as I do not have time to banter back and forth with trival (sic) issues.
If you're talking about wasting time, you've never had a problem wasting it for other people. In my case alone you have wasted thousands of my hours and tens of thousands of my dollars, for which I take full responsibility and you must take all of the blame. And by the way, Mr. Norman, there's nothing trivial about any of these issues.
My main purpose is to set the record straight about Millennium Marketing Group and make sure everyone has a complete picture of who we are and our track record.
That "picture" cannot come from you, because you are a completely unreliable source. You make wildly exaggerated statements that cannot be verified. You have an ongoing problem with facts and the truth. It can only come from reliable outside references, and I am one of those references. Too bad for you. Got any others?
Our firm does indeed provide vernture (sic) capital as well as contingency based marketing agreements.
There's an entire world of inventors out here waiting for tangible proof of your claims. We need specifics: Products, web sites, entrepreneurial stories and so on. We'll print 'em right here, Mr. Norman.
Bottom line is no one can assure success to the “A Typical Inventor” (such as the following of this blog, believing they can do it all themselves) or corporations investing millions of dollars in new product development. Product development invovles (sic) a substantial amount of risk and if you’re not willing to accept this fact, you should be in a different business.
Well hooray for you.
We have numerous success stories and have made hundreds of thousands of dollars in royalties and acqusition (sic) fees for our clients to date.
Mr. Norman, we don't have access to your business records and since you won't truthfully and openly disclose under the AIPA we don't really have any idea if you are selling anything or not. Nor does it make any difference. The only question at issue here is whether or not the vast majority of inventors you target with your marketing proposals have any chance whatsoever of recovering their investment, and the information we have, including the statement by you which follows this one, says that they do not.
You have no credibility and your word and your statements alone mean nothing. I will state that it is inconceivable to me that the MMG I experienced and sued during the period of 2002 through mid 2006 could have generated a single dime of legitimate revenue.
The trend in the invention promotion industry, of which you are part, is to use isolated and occasional success stories to accelerate the sale of worthless marketing "services", which in turn form the vast majority of the industry's cash flow. The simple fact is that your royalty income, if any exists, is minuscule compared to your income from the writing of marketing contracts, which will never return a dime to those who purchase them.
I repeat what I stated earlier: The salesman who sold me the MMG contract knew of only one product licensed during the three year period of his employment ending in 2004, an observation confirmed through other sources. This was a concrete form used in the construction industry. And since yours was a very small office I don't think anyone was keeping secrets about actual marketing successes.
Now, maybe you got religion one Saturday night and it stuck. You turned this all around and have become wildly successful, as you maintain you are. You've trimmed the sales force, toned down the exaggerated claims, put in some marketing and manufacturing experts, hired graphic artists, technical writers and CAD technicians, bought a color printer, scored some big hits and found a way to get that royalty money flowing into the coffers of just about everyone involved.
But somehow, Mr. Norman, being that you are now a very old dog, I would have a hard time believing that such is the case.
Obviously we have many clients that do not reach this level of success,
OK, now we're cutting to the chase. So you, Scott Norman, President and Founder of Millennium Marketing Group, admit that you write marketing contracts, lots of them, which are worthless to their purchasers. Mr. Norman, let's ask a few questions, even at the risk of redundancy:
How many solicitations do you make every year, and how many contracts do you sell? Of those, how many actually end up earning more money for their purchasers than they spend with MMG?
Do you make clear to the potential purchaser of one of your contracts that, based upon a ratio of contracts sold to actual earnings potential, there is almost no chance of the purchaser regaining the investment he or she makes with MMG?
You rant and rave about how sophisticated you are, and yet you routinely write contracts to "market" products that you know do not have the slightest chance of commercial success. If you are so talented and knowledgeable why do you even write them in the first place? Because you believe in the marketing potential of the product, or because you need the cash flow?
And oh yes, what is the actual ratio of your royalty income to your marketing contract income?
...however most are satisfied knowing that we put forth a 110% effort and went above and beyond fulfilling our contractural (sic) obligations.
Whether or not "most are satisfied" is a wide open question, to say the least. We know that a lot aren't.
During the period of time I was contractually bound with MMG not one single contractual obligation or service of any value whatsoever was performed by MMG on my behalf. Repeat, not one. You have completely failed to take the obvious personal, professional and moral responsibility for this situation and you, Scott Norman, as the President of MMG, have repeatedly and knowingly made a variety of false statements attempting to blame your failures on me, which I find to be utterly despicable.
I was promised an "extremely aggressive, precise, three phase method" of marketing, one that you still promise today. This "method" was spelled out in precise detail in soliciting my business. Five months into the contractual period not one single element of this, or any, "three phase" or other plan had been effected by MMG on my behalf. Not one, repeat, not one. What I received after that was a litany of excuses, broken promises and outright lies.
I was promised "four quarterly reports" that would keep me abreast of product development. I never received anything resembling a quarterly report, but I did have you, Scott Norman, inform me that a one line email, which said absolutely nothing, would qualify as a quarterly report in meeting your contractual obligations.
I was promised a "Prospectus... prepared in a meticulous manner and accompanied with accurate support tools used to initiate negotiations with licensees immediately". What I received was an acute embarrassment, thrown together from a template by an unemployed creative writing major with no experience in or knowledge of the industry I was targeting. I had to instruct this person--whom you called a "Research Analyst"-- how to find clearly defined art work on a well-organized CD that had been in MMG's possession for months, and then I had to completely rework the mess he sent me.
I was promised tightly targeted, professional market research. What I received was garbage, a pile of unsorted, randomly printed web pages of absolutely no use to anyone, assembled alone by the same unemployed "Research Analyst" who wrote the "Prospectus". And by the way, I had to sue at a cost of thousands to gain access to this material.
In addition to a "Prospectus" I was promised a "Media Kit" with accompanying "tools" which I (silly me) erroneously assumed would contain some sort of "media". But no one within MMG seemed to know just what a "Media Kit" was, even though it was specifically promised in the contract I signed. The salesman who sold me the contract said that it was the Prospectus, combined with a single page letter explaining how to reach people in MMG. The Research Analyst thought it had something to do with combining a Prospectus with the database, but he wasn't sure and had never actually SEEN a "Media Kit".
Scott Norman would later state in a sworn deposition (and he should know) that the "Media Kit" was just a full color version of the "Prospectus", which was considered too expensive to print out for mass mailings. A black and white Prospectus was to be sent out en mass, unsolicited (yes, straight to the trash) although in my case it was never sent at all. According to Norman the sole purpose of the "Media Kit" was presentation to the hapless MMG client as a sort of trophy piece, celebrating the mutual association of MMG and said client. MMG did not, at that time, produce CD's, DVD's, placards, PowerPoint presentations, logos, brochures, graphics or visual aids of any type, other than that "Prospectus".
I was specifically asked for by MMG, and was happy to supply on day one of my contractual obligation, for any supporting material I could provide to get the project rolling. I provided:
Two U.S. patents;
A completed machinist's prototype, in steel and leather, of a high tech seating device, suitable for showing to any prospective client;
A project book with extensive art work and research, including a positive Wins review, printed and on CD, including extensive and detailed 3D art work beyond what was printed;
A solid list of strong potential contacts, sorted by specialty and with all necessary contact information;
$6000, paid in cash and on time;
A simple request to just try and arrange a few meetings for me.
Other than my $6000 none of this material was ever used, or even looked at in any meaningful way, by MMG during the 12 months I was contracted with them to provide marketing services. My prototype sat in their office hallway as a useless curiosity piece for 11 months; no attempt was ever made to contact any industry source, from contact information supplied by me or generated by MMG, during that time; no marketing plan was ever developed; when art work was at last needed I had to explain how to find it on the CD...
I was promised at the outset by Scott Norman that the amount of money I invested in my project would be doubled by MMG. Norman would later deny having said this, but what else is new. He has made the same false promise before. What I DID get, however was a complete lack of accountability as to just how my $6000 was spent. MMG will NOT provide you with a detailed accounting of how your money is allocated. $1200 went to the commissioned salesman, $250 went to my "Research Analyst", and that's all I can see. Where the other $4550 went I can't figure out, and Scott Norman sure as hell ain't talking.
Dear people, the list goes on, and on, and on. I'm telling you, there's more, lots more.
How about this one. In MMG's solicitation material I was promised that "...Our team will conduct a focus study and research a minimum of 50 potential licensees that own technologies within the same category or have recently licensed similar technologies..." Does that sound like a pretty definite, precise statement to the readers of this blog? Does anybody out there know what a focus study is?
Now, needless to say, I never saw any focus study results and I had to sue and depose Scott Norman under oath at a cost of thousands of dollars to get my answer as to why not. Mr. Norman's response was that yes, a "focus study" had in fact been conducted at MMG's facility in Overland Park, Kansas, on my behalf; the date of the study was uncertain; he wasn't sure who was in attendance, other than himself; there was no written record of the study, but the results of that study were contained in the Prospectus. Now, I had been forced to not only read but re-write the Prospectus, and I can assure you that there were no results of any focus study contained therein. Further, depositions of MMG's employees showed that none of them were aware of any focus study ever being conducted on behalf of a client of MMG.
To the readers of this post in search of a way to market your invention: I am NOT kidding. I am NOT exaggerating. You do NOT want to go here. I repeat, my entire period of time with MMG, including the lawsuit, was a complete, absolute and abysmal waste of time and money, and Scott Norman is personally and professionally responsible for that waste.
I will leave this final comment with your community: Do your own research before making a commitment of working with anyone in the commercialization phase.
Rock and roll, Mr. Norman.
Please decide for yourself the credibility of Ms. Ballou and Mr. Riley:
http://www.myhomepage.org/pennyballou/
http://www.rjriley.com/about-rjriley/rileybio.html
It is true that you are no friend of Ron Riley, and that the names "Norman, Scott" and "Millennium Marketing Group" appear on his Extreme Caution list of people and organizations that inventors should be very wary of doing business with. Mr. Riley and Ms. Ballou had some interesting comments about you in The Invent Blog discussion.
Both of these people have great credibility and respect within the invention community. You personally do not.
We don’t promise success,
The hundreds of form letters your commissioned salespeople send out every week contain exaggerated rubber stamp statements about the potential marketability of the targeted product, none of which have undergone anything approaching acceptable professional product analysis. You personally wildly exaggerate claims of MMG's success, both actual and potential, in both written and verbal statements. You have admitted that you write lots of marketing contracts with the full but undisclosed knowledge that there is little to no chance of those contracts returning a dime to their purchasers.
...but at least we are honest with people and provide them with ALL of the facts and they know we have given them the very best representation.
I've sued and deposed you and your people, Mr. Norman. I have thousands of pages of legal documents relating to MMG in my possession. I have listened to you lie to my face repeatedly. I know otherwise.
I myself question the integrity and credibility of this site. I’m actually flattered by all of the postings on our firm as we must be doing somthing (sic) right to receive all of this attention. It further indicates our position as a leader advocating the rights of the independent inventor.
Now you really ARE wasting our time. The first two sentences of that paragraph are simply ludicrous. You are not receiving "attention" because you are loved or respected.
Mr. Norman, you call yourself a "...full service intellectual property brokerage" as a ruse to excuse yourself from the reporting requirements of the American Inventors Protection Act, you attack Ron Riley of Inventor Ed for standing up to you and who you really are, you've fleeced hundreds of inventors of hundreds of thousands of dollars for worthless marketing services, and then you come up with some garbage about being an advocate for inventor's rights. Do you understand why some people might have a problem with that?
Look, Mr. Norman, get real. People want to know what it that you actually DO for a living, not your delusional claims of grandeur. If you want to "protect" the rights of the independent inventor (how about moving to another country?) immediately and truthfully disclose all relevant MMG information demanded by Section 297 of the American Inventors Protection Act. Start with sections 1 through 5 of the AIPA. Put it on the front page of your web site. Give people the numbers. Let people know who you are and where you really stand.
By the way, did you see the recent press on our firm regarding the fact that we are representing one of our succssful (sic) clients in a multi-million dollar lawsuit against Fortune Brands (publicly held entity with over $9 billion in revenues).
The "press" came from you. Is this all you're going to come up with? Another example of your useless self promotion. This is empty crap. Anyone who studies this will start to get a clearer picture of who and what you really are.
Be sure to look us up in Chicago later this month (October 24th and 25th) at the Ocean Tomo Intellectual Property Summit and Fall IP Auction. Our staff counsel will be to moderator (sic) one of the workshops titled “A Process Approach to IP” (1:30pm on Oct. 24th). We wish everyone the best.
Sorry I missed it.
Becky: You are completely correct in being extremely cautious. Go to the following link:
http://tinyurl.com/ybu2gz6
Post your question with Pacific World Marketing in the subject line. Lots of information on other companies at this site. Good luck.
Posted by: Walt Bujaryn | November 12, 2009 at 04:31 PM
any experience with pacific world marketing,llc. I am researching to find a company and so confused about who to trust. Is there anyone out there without bad press.
Posted by: Becky | November 11, 2009 at 10:20 AM
Any experience with SOLA of Austin? Joseph Garrisi or the president, Joseph Geraci? Talk about a rip off!! I hope someone will blog on this one because they make Millenium look like like a saint in comparison. Though they work off a "list" wanting $1500, and nothing else until a sale, I don't think anything is pursued after the list and a simple one-page, forever-to-get-correct, "no one cares about the details on (this first impression) letter" "you're being too picky about something you don't know anything about" -okay, maybe that part shouldn't be in quotes, but that was the gist of it.
Posted by: spdecroix@sbcglobal.net | March 05, 2009 at 09:38 AM