The Chronology: Personal Experience of One Inventor
How does an otherwise intelligent adult get involved with a company like MMG? Basically, it was a lack of credible available references. I checked them out as far as I could and came up neutral. No positives, no negatives. So I decided to take what I knew would be a chance. Had I known what would follow...
In late 2001 I received my first communication from Millennium Marketing Group of Overland Park, Kansas. This would begin what I can only describe as a descent into inventor hell, one that lasted for almost five years.
2001: First contact with Millennium Marketing Group ™, Ltd
November 30, 2001 I receive a letter from Travis Niehues on a MMG letterhead citing my invention by the name used in the USPTO gazette. The letter introduced me to MMG and directed me to their website, www.patentmovers.com. I put the letter aside over the holidays and then attempted to do some research on the company. I came up with very little. I contacted them by e-mail a couple of months later with a request for further information about the company.
2002: Next contacts with Millennium Marketing Group ™, Ltd
February 19 I receive a letter from Bruce A. Benteman on MMG letterhead detailing how MMG did business and what they could do for me. The letter was slick and detailed, and made MMG sound like a good company with a solid marketing strategy and the people in place to make things happen. They were also offering a very good royalty split.
April 30 I receive another letter from Benteman further detailing how MMG would handle my account. MMG continued to sound like a professional company with whom I could do business.
I was able to contact one company, Kissack Coupler, who was being represented by MMG. The contact with whom I spoke was basically neutral about them, stating only that to date MMG had done everything they said they were going to do and that she had no specific complaints.
The trip to Overland Park
July 15 I travel from Vail, Colorado to Overland Park, Kansas to meet with the MMG staff and discuss the project. I take with me the following items:
-- A fully functioning chair prototype. While still at the “machinist’s” stage it shows all of the functions and is nicely upholstered in leather. It is quite presentable and works very well;
-- A complete project book detailing all aspects of the invention. This includes extensive artwork, built in Lightwave, showing different possible models and how the chair functions; an in-depth analysis of the market including illustrations of dozens of chairs; a filtered list of good possible marketing contacts graded A-B-C; copies of the patents; other relevant information and resources and a WINS evaluation which rated the project very highly;
-- A CD containing everything above in standard formats, plus additional artwork.
I have a VERY well organized portfolio, which represents a lot of work. My point is to emphasize to MMG that we can hit the ground running with this thing. All I need is contacts and, above all, a meeting or two with some key players in the industry.
I meet with several MMG staffers in the Overland Park office and everyone seems quite amiable and professional. This would be my downfall, because I actually liked some of the people I met. Scott Norman is there as well, representing himself as the President of Millennium Marketing Group ™, Ltd. I admit that I do have a somewhat "different" feeling about Norman, but I put it aside. Everyone is very impressed with the invention and they take turns sitting in the chair and talking about how easy this will be to market. It is agreed that the project is at an advanced stage. Norman comments that MMG typically doubles the cash investment that is required of a client to launch the project, which in this case would make $12,000 available for marketing the chair. (Norman would later deny having said this.)
Norman also makes a very big deal about the “proprietary database” MMG uses to seek out contacts and markets for the projects with which they choose to work. He makes it sound very esoteric. This sounds a little odd to me, because a filtered Internet search can turn up 90% of the likely candidates for my project on the first pass. Norman emphasizes that the database had been developed internally and was constantly being updated.
We decide to keep the prototype at the MMG office so that staffers can look it over and get a real sense of the invention. I leave Overland Park with mixed feelings, because I really haven’t developed a strong feeling about MMG one way or the other. A few days later I sign the contract with MMG and send them $3000 as a down payment. All I really want these guys to do is arrange some meetings for me, and that can’t be too difficult. I also feel that the chances of this arrangement working out are no better than 50-50, and that if it doesn’t go well I may one day be with MMG in court.
I fill out a questionnaire from David Youtsey designed to “…build a strong basis for the credibility of the patent and the validity of the venture from a manufacturing perspective…” and return it to MMG. I never hear about the questionnaire again.
In September I pay the second half of my billing with MMG, which brings my total outlay to $6000.
October 16 Deadline for “Phase One” of the project (60 to 90 days from contract signing) passes with no word from MMG. This is also the deadline for the first “Quarterly Report” promised in the Marketing Agreement. I have received nothing. I am extremely busy with the day job.
Phase One was to include:
Development of presentation materials and arrangement of licensees:
Step 1. Conduct formal research, perform due diligence, select candidates.
Step 2. Prepare product prospectus and complete a media kit (listed as two separate items).
Step 3. Prepare financial forecasts, analyze manufacturing and R&D costs, project inventories.
Step 4. Develop a web page for the product acting as a “virtual showroom”.
Step 5. (Optional) Develop a product animation on CD ROM to cost effectively demonstrate the functions of the product.
“Phase Two” was to begin “immediately upon completion of Phase One”. Phase Two was to include:
Enter negotiations with selected licensees.
Step 1. Submission of media kit to potential licensees. “Most importantly” the media kit is directed toward “key players” in the company.
Step 2. Direct telephone conversations with potential licensees.
Step 3. Trade show representation at “selected events”.
November 14 I have made numerous phone calls to Bruce Benteman. He is usually “out of the office”. I have left messages that have not been returned, or I just don’t bother. I e-mail him on the 14th notifying him that the project is now four months out and nothing has been done. I need a status report ASAP.
November 15 Benteman replies that the “marketing research phase” of the project has been "completed" and that Chris Cunnyngham is working on the writing of the “prospectus”. He makes no mention of a “Media Kit”, which was specified in the Marketing Agreement.
December 6 Benteman e-mails me that Cunnyngham has finished a first draft of the prospectus. Benteman says that he “loves the graphics”. The graphics have all been paid for and supplied by me.
Cunnyngham e-mails me that the first draft will be sent to me by Benteman, thanking me for my patience.
I receive the “Prospectus”. This is the piece which is supposed to introduce my design to industry. It is a disaster. It is underwritten, amateurish, devoid of meaningful content and is missing most of the important artwork I had supplied five months earlier (all artwork came from me). A suggested retail price of $1020 for the chair is proffered with no substantiating figures. No evidence of professional cost estimating is supplied. The small amount of original content generated by MMG is clearly irrelevant. Two entire pages are spent listing the “assembly parts”—a meaningless list taken from and useful only within the specific context of the patent. A couple of included pictures are of earlier versions of the chair that are clearly not appropriate for a forward-looking presentation. References to long gone trade shows are included. Masses of important information that I had supplied at the Overland Park meeting of July 14-15 are simply left out.
Later I would find out that the author of the "Prospectus" was a creative writing major who had been hired by Norman from a copy writing position and given the title of "Research Analyst". He had no experience in industry, manufacturing or sales of any type that I could determine, certainly nothing in office furniture. He was paid a flat $250 to "develop" the Prospectus from a template, and this included all "research" performed by MMG on my behalf. That "research" would later be turned over to me in the form of an unsorted pile of crumpled web pages, of no use to anyone. He operated completely on his own, with no input from anyone else. This "Research Analyst" was completely unaware that my prototype, a full size office chair, had been sitting in the MMG hallway for months. He must have walked past it a dozen times.
The 20 hours devoted to my project by this individual would prove to be the only work that anyone within the company did for me in a period of 12 months and for a fee of $6000. MMG had developed about 1500 worthless words of original content, and absolutely nothing else. There is no evidence that anyone at MMG ever even looked at the massive documentation I gave them at the outset.
But I don't know all this yet, and I'm still hoping there's a rabbit in the hat. I realize that I will have to re-write the entire document. Because of the timing of the holidays I cannot get to it until after the first of the year. I am busy with the day job until about the 15th of the month, and am then leaving for two weeks in California.
2003: Down the stretch with Millennium Marketing Group ™, Ltd
January 3 I begin re-writing the prospectus. I add significant explanations and artwork which covers the chair functions and I delete irrelevant text and art. Most of what I add is adapted from material I had already supplied to MMG. The finished product is actually less useful than the completed project book I had supplied both physically and on disk during the July 14th meeting. The information contained in the prospectus is of little real value, but at this point it’s better than nothing. I am deeply troubled by the whole thing, but decide I have to give it a chance.
January 12 I deliver the completed prospectus by e-mail to MMG. It is delivered to both Cunnyngham and Benteman.
January 13 Benteman acknowledges receipt of the e-mail and attachment.
January 16 The six month marker for this project is now upon us, and absolutely nothing has happened. This is also the deadline for the second “Quarterly Report”, which I do not receive.
We should now be entering “Phase Three”, which involves:
Step 1 Negotiate and finalize all license agreements.
Step 2 Complete due diligence.
Step 3 Travel to license facility to complete a site survey for manufacturing and distribution.
February 12 Cunnyngham responds to the re-write with an e-mail, stating that he cannot find illustrations on the disk he has had for seven months.
I respond to Kim, another MMG employee, with instructions on how to cut and paste the illustrations from a document already in their possession. It has taken them one month to respond to the rewrite. Benteman is not in the office and does not respond to phone messages.
March 6 Cunnyngham e-mails me that he has “made the changes” I requested and “inserted the illustrations”. He calls it a “pretty impressive looking document”. In fact NO changes have been made. What he has sent me is exactly what I sent him, with my edits, on January 12, seven weeks earlier. I respond to Benteman and Cunnyngham with an e-mail complaining about the time lag in the project and the fact that absolutely nothing has been accomplished with only four months left on the agreement. I also point out that there are outdated references to trade shows and no word on the status of my prototype...
March 26 Cunnyngham sends an e-mail with a prospectus approval form attached. Apparently I have to approve my own writing. Cunnyngham does not account for the other two weeks delay. I sign and fax back the document on the 27th of March, 2003.
Signing the document was a mistake. Norman would later use this document to insinuate that I was completely satisfied with the project to date and had no reason to complain about anything. In fact, I was just trying to keep the project alive, moving it along before we ran out of time and my investment would be lost.
Norman's world revolves around, among other things, signed documents that he can throw back in your face. Simple but absolute lesson: Don't ever sign anything that in any way obligates you to or associates you with Scott Norman.
April 17 I receive the following letter from and signed by Scott Norman:
“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, there are several interesting elements to note here:
The dates of the show as stated were March 3-6, but as stated directly above the Prospectus hadn’t even been approved until the 27th of March, much less printed and made available for distribution. The Prospectus didn’t exist, so none could have been sent to “interested parties”.
And yet here I was, in possession of a letter from the President and Founder of MMG, smugly assuring me that a non-existent marketing document had in fact been distributed to industry contacts and that the project was rolling along completely as promised and on schedule.
Norman’s claim to have submitted the prospectus on my behalf could not have been mistaken, and was in fact a deliberate falsehood. The letter was my first concrete introduction to the type of lying in which Scott Norman regularly engages. There would be more.
Nine months after signing the contract MMG had absolutely no materials whatsoever with which to promote my project at this or any other show. The prototype which I gave them on day one was sitting uselessly in MMG’s offices in Overland Park.
MMG made no effort to notify me in advance of the show, giving me no opportunity to participate or advise how my own “representation” should take place.
In a period of twelve months Norman never provided a single name of a person or company supposedly contacted on my behalf for me to follow up with. The reason was simple: not one single contact was ever made, despite false statements made by MMG to the contrary.
Later I find out that MMG’s method of providing “representation” at a trade show is to send a couple of employees to walk up and down the aisles passing out the Prospectus and business cards. There are no booths, no banners, no placards, no models or prototypes, no animations or presentations, no inventors to make their own case. No one attempts to reach potential contacts in advance of meeting them. MMG's claims of effective trade show representation on behalf of their clients are a joke.
Early June I have complained vigorously to MMG by telephone about the status of this whole process. My conversation initiates with Bruce Benteman, who refers me to an “Executive Vice President”. I am now very upset and let her know this in detail. Scott Norman calls me back and is defensive. I ask him, among other things, about the “web page” MMG was going to create to promote the project. He makes excuses.
June 6 I receive a letter from MMG notifying me that MMG has created a “web sight” (sic) for “potential licensees to review” the Renegade Space Seating System. Without carefully following the link she sends me—HTTP:/patents.patentbase.com/Renegade-Space-Seating--it is absolutely impossible to find the “web sight”. When I find it, it consists of a single picture that I provided eleven months earlier and a block of text I provided in the re-written prospectus. It could not have taken more than 15 minutes to assemble the single page and get it on line.
The contract I had signed with MMG stipulated that “web presence” would be provided for the period of one year. I receive notice of its creation with approximately five weeks left on the contract.
Norman would later tell me that the reason for the eleven month delay in getting the single page posted was that it was in "development". I repeat: all content on this single, utterly useless page was provided by me personally and had been in MMG's possession since day one of my contract signing.
June 11 I receive two copies of an Amendment to Patent Marketing Agreement from MMG, asking that I extend my commitment for six months so that MMG can "follow up on its leads" on my behalf. Another reference is made to “licensees we sent the prospectus to from the last trade show we attended”. This echoes Scott Norman’s statement that he had sent the “prospectus” to various unnamed interested parties at the Chicago trade show before the prospectus even existed. I now consider this to be an insulting and vicious lie.
I do not sign the agreement.
June 13 I receive a letter from MMG expressing “excitement” that MMG had entered into “Phase Two” of the marketing plan. No mention of the non-completion of “Phase One” is made. The letter specifically states that “Media Kits” had been sent to specific contacts on my custom “database” and that a list for my review was attached. There is in fact no list of potential licensees included. And I have never seen a "Media Kit", although MMG was obligated to produce one under terms of the Marketing Agreement. In fact, there is no Media Kit. The letter then rehashes old PR material.
I would later discover that no mailings of any type to any contact, solicited, unsolicited or otherwise, had ever been made by MMG on my behalf. The letter was a complete fraud.
I would also later force Norman to state under oath that the "Media Kit", promised in MMG's solicitation letters and specified in their contract, was just a full color version of the "Prospectus", which was considered by Norman too expensive for mass mailings. The mass mailings, which went out unsolicited, were sent in black and white, and, one could assume, went straight to the trash.
There was no "media" and there was no "kit". No graphics, no logos, no animations, no placards, no CD's or DVD's, no nothing. The "Media Kit" is another Scott Norman fraud.
June 17-18 I travel to Overland Park to pick up my prototype and have a conversation with Scott Norman and Bruce Benteman. Before speaking with anyone I load my prototype into my vehicle. During the subsequent meeting Norman is particularly offensive and disagreeable, attempting to make it appear as if I, the paying client, was the one responsible for the delays in the project. He particularly pointed to the lag time between when I received the original prospectus in December and when I returned it, a period of about five weeks. He does not say what MMG did in the five months prior to my receiving it, or the six months afterward. He offers no evidence of any type of meaningful work performed by MMG on my behalf. I point out to him, and Benteman agrees, that no one does any business for two or three weeks in December and that, after all, I did have to re-write the whole thing. I also bring up the total failure of MMG to meet any part of its obligation under our agreement, and note that not a single deadline had been met on their part. I had provided two US patents, a completed prototype, a project book, extensive artwork, $6000 in cash, paid on time, and had responded in a timely fashion to every request made of me. I had received nothing of any value whatsoever in return.
I asked Norman how he had marketed the project at the trade show in Chicago without any marketing materials. Both his letter of April 17 and Coomes’ letter of June 11 had unambiguously stated that MMG had sent copies of the “prospectus” to interested individuals. He now changed his story to say that he had provided “copies of the patent” to interested individuals, thus supplanting one lie with another. He would not state who those individuals were, nor would he comment on the marketing technique of handing out copies of patents at trade shows. I note that MMG had never developed a “Media Kit” although it was specified; he now states that the “Prospectus” WAS the Media Kit. I asked him specifically who he had given copies to, and he said he’d “check on it”. I then noted that the communication from MMG had not contained the list of “potential licensees” contacted on my behalf by MMG. He produced a list for me that was five pages of entries like “Bench-Craft, Incorporated, Fullerton, CA”. There was not a single address, not a single web site, not a single phone number, not a single contact name on the list. I asked if he had sent the prospectus to each one of these companies and he muttered something noncommittal about still “refining” the list.
This was the vaunted “Database” that he had crowed about during our first meeting, a useless list of furniture makers of all types—wooden bedroom furniture manufacturers, for instance—that had simply been gleaned in some web search for “furniture”.
Norman emphasized to me that MMG wanted to extend the contract with me so that the “marketing effort” could continue. He also repeatedly referred to how much money he had sunk into the project and how he didn’t want to lose it. He provided me with another contract extension that he wanted me to sign on the spot. I told him I’d have to think about it and that I wanted to go over the list of potential “licensees” he had provided me with. I then left MMG’s offices.
I went over the “database” when I returned to Colorado and after the first page or so it was obvious that it was useless. There was not a single name or contact number on it. It was insulting to my intelligence that anyone would hand me such a piece of garbage and expect me to accept it. Any furniture company, from builders of high chairs for infants to makers of wooden kitchen cabinets had been included. Out of some forty entries on the list only seven had any relevance, and those were already known to me. The highly filtered list of potential contacts I had given MMG at the initial meeting was far superior, and it had been ignored.
Everything that Norman had told me in his office was a lie. Further, I was becoming more acutely aware of how he operates, his eternal attempts to manipulate known facts that are detrimental to his cause to his own advantage, his astounding habit of substituting one incredible lie for another when the truth would be so simple. Blaming me for his personal moral and professional failure to complete even one single facet of his marketing contract was just an example of how he operates.
July 16 The last deadline for a quarterly report from MMG passes. I receive nothing. My “Agreement” expires.
Mid July, 2003
I have a final conversation with Scott Norman by telephone. I ask him one more time for a list of the potential licensees MMG had “contacted on my behalf”, both at the trade show and through his database. He said he’d e-mail me a list right away.
As of today, I’m still waiting for that list.
Very interesting. I received a US patent in 2009 and have had several marketing letters from MMG. I did not respond to them as I had been warned by the USPTO about such promoters. None of what you experienced above surprises me. The big mistake you made was submitting too much money in advance.
Thanks for posting this. It's a real "heads up" for anyone thinking about walking through this minefield.
I wish you luck in eventually selling you patented chair.
Posted by: David Holdway | July 25, 2011 at 10:43 AM