Low Contact with Parents: When Full Estrangement Isn’t the Answer
Low contact with parents is a deliberate, structured choice to reduce a difficult family relationship without ending it. This article explores what low contact actually means clinically, how it differs from full estrangement and unmanaged distance, why it requires significant internal work to hold, and how driven women can build the rules, rituals, and protective architectures that make it sustainable over time.
Last reviewed: June 2026 by Annie Wright, LMFT
- Renée Has Four Minutes Before She Calls Her Mother from the Conference Room She Reserved Specifically for This
- What Low Contact Actually Is. A Clinical Definition That Goes Beyond “I See Them Less”
- The Differences Between Low Contact, No Contact, and Managed Distance. What Each One Costs and Protects
- How Driven Women Engineer Low Contact. The Rules, Rituals, and Protective Architectures That Make It Work
- The Internal Work Low Contact Requires. Why the Geography Changes Before the Psychology Does
- Both/And: You Can Love Your Parent AND Need to See Her Much Less. And Choosing Your Own Wellbeing Is Not Abandonment
- The Systemic Lens: The Guilt Architecture of Low Contact. How Culture, Religion, and “Good Daughter” Mythology Are Used to Keep Adult Children Overexposed to Harmful Relationships
- What Low Contact Looks Like One Year In. What Changes and What Doesn’t
- Frequently Asked Questions
Renée Has Four Minutes Before She Calls Her Mother from the Conference Room She Reserved Specifically for This
It’s 12:44 on a Thursday, and Renée has a 1pm call with her mother. She’s already in the room she reserved for it. She’s a 45-year-old corporate lawyer at a firm that never runs short of conference space, and she books this particular room every week for this particular call. It faces north. The light is flat and professional. She chose it deliberately, because the office is the context where she feels most like herself, and she needs to feel like herself for the next twenty minutes.
If you've been managing a narcissistic parent's reality your whole life, my self-paced course Normalcy After the Narcissist is where yours begins.
She has four minutes to review her list. Work: yes, she’ll mention the depositions. Her sister: no. The ex-boyfriend her mother disapproves of: absolutely not. What she had for dinner last Tuesday: fine, harmless, a safe twenty seconds of neutral content. Her laptop is open in front of her with a brief she needs to finish by 3pm. She’s not looking at the brief. She’s looking at the list.
The thought that runs through her mind, the one she’s had more than once in the six months since she restructured her contact with her mother, is this: I have spent forty-five years managing this woman’s feelings. I have now decided to do it from a distance, on a schedule, for twenty minutes a week. I don’t know if this is health or just a fancier version of the same thing.
It’s a fair question. And it’s one I hear in different forms from many of the women I work with who are somewhere in the complicated middle, not willing to walk away entirely, not willing to stay as close as they were. Low contact isn’t a single clean decision. It’s a practice, and like most practices, the quality of it depends less on the structure you put in place and more on what you’re doing with yourself while the structure holds.
What Low Contact Actually Is. A Clinical Definition That Goes Beyond “I See Them Less”
When most people use the phrase “low contact,” they mean something vague: calling less often, visiting less, keeping things surface-level. But clinically, low contact is something more specific than that, and the distinction matters. Vague reduction of contact without intentional structure is just drift. It tends to produce anxiety without protection, because the contact that does happen still operates on the family’s original terms.
A deliberately reduced level of family contact, characterized by pre-set frequency, limited content, and explicit personal rules about what will and will not be engaged with. Low contact is not simply less contact; it’s structured contact in which the adult child, rather than the family system, sets the terms of engagement.
In plain terms: It’s not just calling less often. It’s deciding in advance how often, for how long, about what topics, and in what circumstances. Then you hold to those decisions even when the pull to do otherwise is strong. If you’re going low contact with your parents, you’re not retreating. You’re designing.
The distinction between deliberate low contact and unstructured drift is significant. Drift looks like answering calls when you feel up to it, skipping visits when you’re overwhelmed, keeping things shorter without having a clear line about why. Drift gives the family system the opening to interpret your absence as a problem to be solved, and to apply pressure accordingly. Deliberate low contact, by contrast, makes frequency and content a choice you’ve already made, so there’s less real-time negotiation happening every time contact occurs.
I also want to name what low contact is not: it’s not a punishment, it’s not giving your parent a chance to miss you and change, and it’s not a waiting room for full estrangement. For some people, low contact is a permanent configuration. For others, it’s a period of recalibration. What it is, always, is a response to a real assessment of what this relationship costs you and what amount of it you can sustain without ongoing harm.
If you’re reading our broader family estrangement guide and trying to figure out where you fall on the contact spectrum, it’s worth knowing that low contact and estrangement are not on a single continuum from connected to disconnected. They’re different structures with different requirements. Low contact requires active maintenance. It requires you to show up, within your set parameters, even when you’d rather not, because disappearing without explanation is, ironically, harder to sustain than a consistent, bounded presence.
The Differences Between Low Contact, No Contact, and Managed Distance. What Each One Costs and Protects
One of the most important questions a person can ask before going low contact with their parents is: what am I actually trying to protect? The answer shapes which configuration makes sense. Full no-contact protects against all ongoing exposure to a harmful person or pattern. Low contact protects against total loss of the relationship while still limiting exposure. And managed distance involves a more flexible, context-dependent version of the same principle.
A clinical term for the deliberate, conscious structuring of emotional and physical proximity in a relationship, designed to allow some connection while limiting exposure to harm. Unlike low contact, which typically involves fixed frequency and topic rules, managed distance is more responsive to context and may vary based on circumstances, seasons, or the other person’s current state.
In plain terms: You’re not cutting contact, and you’re not maintaining contact as usual. You’re deciding, consciously and on your own terms, how close to stand. You revisit that decision when the situation changes rather than setting a fixed rule and holding it forever.
Psychiatrist Murray Bowen, MD, who developed family systems theory at Georgetown University Medical Center, described enmeshment as the loss of individual self within the family’s emotional field, one of the central risks for adult children in difficult family systems. Bowen’s theory of differentiation offers an important reframe: the goal isn’t distance for its own sake, but rather the capacity to remain in relationship without being governed by the family’s emotional atmosphere.
What no contact protects that low contact doesn’t is the exposure itself. If a parent is genuinely dangerous, physically threatening, actively abusive, or pathologically intrusive, low contact may not provide adequate protection. It creates a reduced-exposure structure, but exposure still happens. For people whose parents have patterns consistent with emotional immaturity, narcissism, or addiction, the question isn’t whether low contact is philosophically valid. It’s whether it’s structurally sufficient.
The cost of no contact that low contact avoids is the grief that comes with a clean break. Full estrangement involves mourning the parent you don’t have and the relationship that won’t happen. It involves social costs, family-system pressure, and a kind of finality that many people aren’t ready for. Low contact preserves the possibility of the relationship while containing its damage. That’s a genuine trade-off, not a failure of nerve.
Murray Bowen, MD, Georgetown University Medical Center: the capacity to maintain a defined sense of self while remaining in emotional contact with significant others. In the context of family systems, a differentiated adult can be present with her family of origin without being absorbed into the family’s emotional field, without reactively distancing, and without needing the family to change in order for her to feel okay.
In plain terms: You can be in the same room with your mother without becoming the version of yourself you were at fourteen. You can hear her opinion without it rearranging your sense of yourself. This is the internal goal that low contact’s external structure is trying to support, not distance for its own sake, but the capacity to be close without losing yourself.
How Driven Women Engineer Low Contact. The Rules, Rituals, and Protective Architectures That Make It Work
In my work with clients, I’ve noticed that the driven women who are most successful at sustaining low contact are the ones who treat it like any other complex project, with systems, parameters, contingency planning, and regular review. That’s not a clinical prescription; it’s just what I’ve observed. The women who struggle most are the ones who try to hold low contact through willpower alone, deciding case by case whether to answer the phone or share this piece of news.
The rules that tend to work are specific rather than general. “I won’t overshare” is not a rule. “I won’t tell my mother I’m dating someone new until we’ve been together for six months” is a rule. “I’ll call on Sunday mornings, for no more than twenty minutes, from a place where I feel grounded” is a rule. Specificity removes the negotiation from the moment of contact itself. You’re not deciding in real time. You’ve already decided.
Lindsay C. Gibson, PsyD, clinical psychologist and author of Adult Children of Emotionally Immature Parents, writes extensively about the role of emotional boundaries in protecting the self within a difficult parent relationship. Gibson’s framework distinguishes between reactive distancing, which means pulling away in the heat of emotional overwhelm, and deliberate role-exiting, which involves consciously choosing not to play the role the parent is casting you in. Low contact’s architecture supports role-exiting. It makes it easier to stay in the relationship without staying in the old role.
Consider Lana, 41, a senior project manager in a healthcare technology company. Lana spent most of her adult life flying home for every family occasion, answering her father’s calls within the hour, and structuring her vacations around her parents’ preferences. When she decided to go low contact, the first thing she did was write down the rules, a list of what she would and wouldn’t engage with, how often she would initiate contact, and what topics were off the table. Then she put the list somewhere she could see it. “I needed it to be external,” she told me. “If it was just in my head, I’d negotiate myself out of it every time.”
That piece, externalizing the rules, turns out to be common among women who sustain low contact over time. Some keep a literal list, like Lana. Some have a ritual they go through before contact that centers them. Some, like Renée, use an environmental anchor: the conference room, the office context, the version of herself that isn’t easily destabilized. The content of the ritual matters less than the function, which is to activate the intentional, boundaried self before the contact begins, rather than hoping she’ll show up on her own.
For more on what that internal preparation involves, our piece on reparenting yourself goes into the practices that support this kind of deliberate self-grounding. And if narcissistic siblings are part of the family picture complicating your low-contact structure, that article addresses how the sibling system often enforces parental contact even when you’ve tried to reduce it.
The Internal Work Low Contact Requires. Why the Geography Changes Before the Psychology Does
Here’s what nobody tells you about low contact: the external structure is the easy part. Deciding on the frequency, booking the conference room, making the rules, these are practical decisions. They can be made in an afternoon. What can’t be made in an afternoon is the internal shift that allows the structure to actually protect you.
Pauline Boss, PhD, professor emerita at the University of Minnesota and the researcher who developed the concept of ambiguous loss, has written about the grief involved in relationships where the person is physically present but emotionally or psychologically absent. Boss’s framework is usually applied to dementia caregiving or relationships with missing persons, but it applies with remarkable accuracy to the experience of maintaining limited contact with a parent who is alive, reachable, and still not safe to be close to. The loss is real, and because there’s no clear end point, there’s no socially recognized moment to grieve it.
What I see consistently in clients navigating low contact is that they can change the geography, meaning the frequency, duration, and content of calls, without yet having changed the internal expectation. They’ve reduced exposure to their mother, but they haven’t yet stopped hoping she’ll be different this time. They’ve structured the call so she can’t ask about their relationship, but they haven’t yet metabolized the grief of having a mother who can’t be trusted with that information. The structure is in place. The mourning hasn’t started yet.
“Caring for myself is not self-indulgence. It is self-preservation, and that is an act of political warfare.”
AUDRE LORDE, poet and essayist, A Burst of Light
Lorde’s framing, self-preservation as something requiring active defense and not passive withdrawal, is relevant here. Low contact is not a passive act. It requires actively defending a certain quality of internal life against the ongoing pull of the family system’s expectations, against your own hope that things will be different, against guilt, and against the version of yourself who was shaped to make this woman feel good at cost to yourself. That’s real work, and it doesn’t happen automatically once the schedule is set.
This is why therapy with Annie or another trauma-informed therapist is so often the container in which low contact actually becomes workable. Not because you need permission to reduce contact, but because the internal work, the grief, the mourning of the parent you needed and didn’t get, the untangling of guilt from genuine accountability, tends to require support. The geography of low contact can be set in place alone. The psychology of it almost always needs a witness.
If you’re sitting with the grief of a parent who is living but unreachable in the ways that matter, our piece on how to grieve a living parent addresses this specific experience, the particular, unrecognized grief of mourning a relationship that isn’t over.
Both/And: You Can Love Your Parent AND Need to See Her Much Less. And Choosing Your Own Wellbeing Is Not Abandonment
One of the most pervasive traps in low-contact decision-making is the belief that love and distance are mutually exclusive. That if you really loved your parent, you’d find a way to be close. That choosing to limit contact means you’ve given up on her, decided she’s irredeemable, or stopped caring. This belief is both common and wrong, and it tends to be most ferocious in the people who love their parents most deeply while also having been most hurt by them.
The Both/And here is this: you can love your parent and need to see her much less. These aren’t in opposition. They often coexist. The decision to go low contact frequently comes from love, a love that has looked clearly at the relationship and concluded that the current configuration is damaging to both of you, and that something different is required. That’s not giving up. That’s taking the relationship seriously enough to change its form.
The second part of this Both/And is equally important: choosing your own wellbeing in this context is not abandonment. Abandonment is leaving someone without care or resources. What you’re doing in low contact is not leaving your parent without care or resources. You’re limiting the degree to which her emotional life takes precedence over yours. The conflation of the two, the belief that prioritizing yourself means abandoning her, is one of the central psychological mechanisms that keeps adult children overexposed to harmful relationships long after they know the exposure is costing them.
What I see in clinical work is that women who grew up as emotional caretakers for their parents, the daughters who learned early that their job was to manage their mother’s moods, to smooth over their father’s rages, to be the steady presence the household needed, have particular difficulty with this Both/And. They’ve been trained to experience their own needs as threats to the relationship. The idea that they could choose themselves without it constituting a betrayal can feel genuinely revolutionary.
The estranged at the holidays piece covers the particular version of this Both/And that emerges around family events, when the cultural expectation that families gather at certain times of year collides directly with the lived reality that gathering isn’t safe or sustainable for everyone. Low contact at the holidays requires a clear internal conviction that showing up for your own wellbeing is not the same as failing to show up for your family.
The Systemic Lens: The Guilt Architecture of Low Contact. How Culture, Religion, and “Good Daughter” Mythology Are Used to Keep Adult Children Overexposed to Harmful Relationships
When a woman decides to go low contact with her parents, she rarely faces that decision in a vacuum. She faces it inside a dense web of cultural messaging about what good daughters do, what family means, what she owes the people who raised her, and what kind of person reduces contact with her own mother. That web is not incidental to her experience. It is a structural feature of the situation with real effects on how hard low contact is to sustain.
The guilt that most adults feel when reducing parental contact is not a sign that they’re doing something wrong. It’s a sign that the cultural and familial scripts about contact and obligation are working exactly as designed. Guilt is the enforcement mechanism. It is how the system keeps itself intact.
In the context of family systems: the use of guilt, whether applied directly by the parent or through the adult child’s internalized family script, to enforce contact and conformity. This is distinct from healthy relational accountability, which is rooted in genuine care and harm-repair. Guilt as a control mechanism functions regardless of whether the parent is consciously deploying it; the internalized version is often more powerful than anything the parent says directly.
In plain terms: The guilt you feel when you cancel a visit or don’t call for two weeks isn’t always telling you that you’ve done something genuinely wrong. Sometimes it’s the internalized voice of a system that was built to keep you close, regardless of what close was costing you. Learning to tell the difference between guilt-as-information and guilt-as-control is one of the central tasks of low-contact work.
Susan Forward, PhD, psychologist and author of Toxic Parents, addresses this directly in her work on the guilt architecture built into parent-child relationships. Forward argues that many adult children have been conditioned to experience any prioritization of their own needs as an act of disloyalty, and that this conditioning is maintained through a combination of direct parental messaging, family mythology, and broader cultural narratives about what children owe their parents.
“Forgiveness does not mean that you must have a relationship with someone who has hurt you. It doesn’t mean that you must excuse what happened or pretend it didn’t. You can forgive someone and still set boundaries. You can forgive someone and choose not to be close to them.”
SUSAN FORWARD, PhD, psychologist and author, Toxic Parents
Religious frameworks can intensify this architecture significantly. “Honor thy father and thy mother” is a commandment that has been used in innumerable family systems to override an adult child’s legitimate assessment that the relationship is harmful. The interpretation of “honor” as unconditional presence and availability, rather than as a complex ethical obligation that can coexist with limits, is not theologically inevitable, but it’s culturally common. For women who grew up in religious households, this framing can feel less like cultural pressure and more like metaphysical requirement.
Cultural narratives about family loyalty, collectivist frameworks where individual needs are subordinated to family cohesion, and ethnic and immigrant family scripts about what adult children owe aging parents all operate in this same space. They’re not wrong in every application. But they become harmful when they’re applied uniformly, without regard for the specific relational dynamics at play, functioning as a reason not to ask whether the level of contact is actually good for anyone involved.
The grey rock method, which involves minimizing emotional reactivity and information-sharing during difficult interactions, can be understood through this systemic lens as a way of staying inside the culturally required contact structure while protecting yourself within it. It’s a response to the fact that for many women, full estrangement isn’t practically available, not because they haven’t thought about it, but because the cultural and familial costs are genuinely prohibitive. Our article on narcissistic siblings covers the grey rock approach in the sibling context in detail.
What Low Contact Looks Like One Year In. What Changes and What Doesn’t
One year into a structured low-contact arrangement, what most people find is this: some things have improved unmistakably, and some things are exactly as hard as they were at the beginning, just in different ways. Being honest about both matters, because the version of low contact that promises a clean resolution is misleading. The women who set that expectation tend to feel like they’ve failed when the complexity remains.
What typically improves is the acute dysregulation that came from unstructured, high-frequency contact: the days after a difficult conversation that destabilized you for a week, the anxiety leading up to visits that had no defined end point. When contact is structured, when you know when it’s coming, how long it will last, and what you will and won’t engage with, the anticipatory dread tends to reduce. You’re no longer bracing for something unpredictable. You’re preparing for something defined.
What tends to remain is the grief. One of the things Pauline Boss’s framework on ambiguous loss clarifies is that reducing contact doesn’t resolve the underlying loss, meaning the loss of the parent you needed and didn’t have. If anything, low contact can bring that grief closer to the surface, because you’re no longer so busy managing the relationship that you don’t have space to feel what the relationship actually is. The structure creates room. What fills that room is often sadness.
A communication approach used within contact with a difficult person, particularly one who is drawn to emotional reactivity, conflict, or personal information, in which the respondent becomes as neutral and uninteresting as possible: minimal emotional expression, minimal personal disclosure, minimal engagement with provocative content. The goal is to make the interaction unrewarding for someone who seeks reaction.
In plain terms: You become a grey rock during the call. Not hostile, not engaged, not fighting, just not giving anything to work with. You answer questions briefly. You don’t volunteer information. You don’t rise to the bait. It’s not about being cold; it’s about being uninteresting to someone who wants to find a wound to press on.
What I most want to say to the person one year into low contact who is still not sure if she’s doing it right: the ambivalence doesn’t mean the decision was wrong. Renée’s question, “Is this health, or just a fancier version of the same thing?”, is a genuinely good question. It deserves a real answer, not reassurance. And the answer isn’t the same for everyone.
You've been managing their reality long enough.
A focused self-paced course on the specific damage of being raised inside a narcissistic family system. The framework, the language, and the recovery sequence, without the gaslighting that named you the problem.
For some women, low contact is in fact a more sophisticated version of the same avoidance, the same people-pleasing now expressed in controlled doses. Therapy, specifically the kind of relational trauma work that examines the internal dynamics and not just the external structure, can help you figure out which one it is. For others, low contact is genuinely healing, the structure that allowed them to stop being governed by the relationship and start being governed by themselves. Both versions are possible, and only you, with support, can determine which one you’re in.
If you’re working through whether low contact is the right configuration for your specific situation, or whether you’re somewhere on the path toward considering no contact, our piece on how to grieve a living parent and our family estrangement guide are both starting points that may help you locate yourself on the spectrum.
You don’t have to resolve this alone. If you’re carrying the weight of a family relationship that doesn’t have a clean answer, and you’re trying to figure out what a liveable version of it looks like, that’s exactly the kind of work worth doing with someone who knows this territory. Low contact is a beginning, a structural beginning. What comes after the structure is in place is the work of actually living differently. That work is possible, and it tends to go better with company.
Q: How do I go low contact with my parents without a dramatic confrontation?
A: Most people don’t need to announce low contact; they need to implement it. You don’t owe your parents a formal declaration that you’re reducing contact. What tends to work better is quietly changing your behavior: calling less often, keeping conversations shorter, not volunteering personal information, not engaging with topics that pull you into old dynamics. If someone asks why they haven’t heard from you, you can say you’ve been busy without making it a confrontation. If a parent escalates, that’s information about their relationship to the existing contact level, and it’s worth having a therapist in your corner before that conversation happens.
Q: Is low contact effective long-term, or does it usually lead to full estrangement?
A: For many people, low contact is a permanent configuration rather than a temporary one, a sustainable ongoing relationship structure and not a waystation to no contact. Whether it leads to estrangement depends heavily on how the parent responds and on the adult child’s own evolving assessment of what the relationship costs. Some people maintain structured low contact for years or decades. Others find that the parent’s behavior escalates in response to reduced access, or that their own healing work clarifies that no contact is what they actually need. Neither outcome means the low-contact period failed; it means you gathered important information about what the relationship requires.
Q: How do I handle family gatherings when I’m low contact?
A: Family gatherings are where low contact gets tested most directly, because the structure you’ve built for one-on-one contact doesn’t automatically transfer to a family environment. A few things that help: having a clear arrival and departure time so you’re not staying for the whole event, having an exit plan and someone you can text if you need to leave, keeping one or two trusted people at the event aware of what you’re managing, and having a plan for the days after that allows for decompression. You don’t have to fake warmth you don’t feel. You do need to manage your own nervous system through it, and having done the internal preparation work beforehand makes a significant difference.
Q: What do I tell other family members and friends who ask why I see my parents less?
A: You don’t owe anyone an explanation. “We’re keeping things lower-key right now” and “I’ve been prioritizing some things closer to home” are both complete sentences. The people who need to know more, like close friends, a therapist, or a trusted partner, can know more. Extended family doesn’t need a detailed account of your decision-making. One thing worth noticing: if you feel compelled to justify the reduced contact to everyone who asks, that compulsion is worth examining. You don’t need a reason that other people agree with in order for your decision to be valid.
Q: Is low contact enough, or do I actually need therapy to make it work?
A: Low contact is an external structure. Therapy addresses what’s happening internally: the grief, the guilt, the internalized family messages, the patterns you carry from this relationship into other relationships. Some people can sustain low contact without therapy, particularly if their low-contact structure is genuinely holding and the relationship isn’t triggering significant distress. But most people find that without the internal work, the structure becomes a kind of management, containing the relationship without actually changing their relationship to it. If you find yourself negotiating with yourself before every call, feeling destabilized for days after contact, or unable to implement the rules you’ve set without significant internal struggle, therapy is likely the missing piece rather than a stricter set of rules.
Related Reading
Forward, Susan. Toxic Parents: Overcoming Their Hurtful Legacy and Reclaiming Your Life. Bantam Books, 1989.
Gibson, Lindsay C. Adult Children of Emotionally Immature Parents: How to Heal from Distant, Rejecting, or Self-Involved Parents. New Harbinger Publications, 2015.
Boss, Pauline. Ambiguous Loss: Learning to Live with Unresolved Grief. Harvard University Press, 1999.
Bowen, Murray. Family Therapy in Clinical Practice. Jason Aronson, 1978.
Lorde, Audre. A Burst of Light: Essays. Firebrand Books, 1988.
WAYS TO WORK WITH ANNIE
Individual Therapy
Trauma-informed therapy for driven women healing relational trauma. Licensed in 11 jurisdictions.
Executive Coaching
Trauma-informed coaching for driven women navigating leadership and burnout.
Fixing the Foundations™
Annie’s signature course for relational trauma recovery. Work at your own pace.
Strong & Stable
The Sunday conversation you wished you’d had years earlier. 25,000+ subscribers.
Annie Wright, LMFT
LMFT · Relational Trauma Specialist · W.W. Norton Author
Helping driven women finally feel as good as their résumé looks.
Annie Wright is a licensed psychotherapist (LMFT #95719) and trauma-informed executive coach with over 25,000 clinical hours. She works with driven women. Including Silicon Valley leaders, physicians, and entrepreneurs. In repairing the psychological foundations beneath their impressive lives. Annie is the founder and former CEO of Evergreen Counseling, a multimillion-dollar trauma-informed therapy center she built, scaled, and successfully exited. A regular contributor to Psychology Today, her expert commentary has appeared in Forbes, Business Insider, Inc., NBC, and The Information. She is currently writing her first book with W.W. Norton.
Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist (LMFT #95719)
15,000+ direct clinical hours
California · Connecticut · Washington DC · Florida · Maine · Maryland · New Hampshire · New Jersey · Texas · Virginia · Washington
Creator of House of Life™ and Fixing the Foundations™
The Everything Years (W.W. Norton)
Founder & former CEO, Evergreen Counseling
Regular contributor to Psychology Today. Expert commentary has appeared in Forbes, Business Insider, Inc., NBC, and The Information.
