Top Public Relations Blog

  • A blog by Gutenberg Communications

Did Google Just Kill PR? NO WAY
by Kylie Brusch

Write Comment

Most of you have likely heard the news that Google updated their webmaster rules on links and keywords in press releases. Tom Foremski at ZDNet thinks this is going to create serious problems for PR agencies that add links and repeat words in press releases to drive traffic to clients’ sites.

Foremski states that PR agencies face three big problems:

  • Their current and former clients could become very upset with them because of perfectly acceptable prior PR practices designed to promote their business — instead of the viral, organic growth based on happy customers, which is what Google now wants to see.
  • PR agencies could be held liable for the damage they caused to the online reputation of client businesses through the execution of normal practices. It could lead to legal action and compensation claims on millions of dollars in lost sales.
  • PR agencies have to wake up to the fact that Google is now their competitor. How do they promote a client when Google punishes any form of paid online promotion? Good luck with that one.

I know I’m not alone here when I state that, I don’t find this threatening to the results that we produce for our clients. Although there is a stigma that in PR all we do is distribute press releases, there is a lot more to this practice and the people behind it. Public Relations firms large or small, employ a very talented group of people who enjoy writing and are good at it, some even employ ex-journalists themselves. Within PR, we make each clients’ messages relevant to the audience they are looking to address. We at times even step in as the client themselves taking over their social channels and getting out the message they want into the world – and most of the time we do this without including multiple links and repeat words in our content.

PR in itself is some of the best marketing that companies can get. PR agencies know the trade publications, we know the business press and we know who writes about what and what they’re likely to cover. This gives us an incredible upper hand when working with upper management and C-level executives that employ our services. Most of the time, they simply do not have the background knowledge to know whom to reach out to and what to discuss. This is not a hard sell on you have five minutes to tell me everything about your product. We schedule the interviews and garner the interest by being clairvoyant in what the topic will address. As VentureBeat noted prior, the best buzz generator for media is to simply be yourself and tell your story – everyone else’s story has already been told, no need to try to be the next (insert company name here).

When we work with our clients we look not only at how to get the recent announcement the most pick-up via press release distribution. No; we look at the inherent mechanisms of the entire PR program. We discuss goals, metrics, quarterly and yearly dos and don’ts and work to educate our clients on the key factors we’ll need from them in order to give them measurable results that meet their expectations.

So will Google’s new rule that can actually punish companies that include too many keywords in the same article or insert links throughout hurt our work? There is some potential in that. But likely PR professionals will continue driving engagement with the media and delivering compelling content whose quality will likely speak for itself, and its SEO results.

Carlos in Danger – How the Media Can Turn on You
by Danielle Giaccio

Write Comment

As a born and raised New Yorker, I have been around for my fair share of NY political scandals. New York is the hub of the media world and the saying is true, “if you can make it here, you can make it anywhere”. As a PR professional, I think the saying should also be, “if you can survive the media here, you can survive it anywhere.”  The NY media is currently focusing on a scandal that has yet again rocked the NY political scene. Mayoral candidate Anthony Weiner aka Carlos Danger was ousted as being involved in another scandal and admitted it, again.

Prior to the scandal coming to light, Weiner actually had a lead in the polls and it was looking like New Yorkers were ready to forgive and forget. Even the media was being kind to the once embattled congressman who initially had to resign due to the first round of accusations.

Weiner came out strong and had a good PR team to paint him in this new reformed light. He made several TV commercials acknowledging his past mistakes while asking New Yorkers to take a second look and give him a chance. He seemed to be a changed man in the eyes of voters and the media and we began to listen to what he had to say about the issues facing New Yorkers. We started to forget about the past scandal and started to take him seriously as a candidate.

All of that changed when a young woman went to the media with yet another claim against Weiner.  She opened a can of worms on the candidate and inevitably ruined what his PR team worked so hard to prove to the media and the voters – that Weiner was a reformed candidate who was ready to put the past behind him. Little did his PR team know that his past would come back to haunt him and inevitably ruin the image that was initially portrayed to the media.

This brings to light an issue many publicists face in their daily work. What do you do when the image you worked so hard to build in the media and public is tarnished? How do you help the image recover? In this particular situation, can they recover?

In Weiner’s case, prospects for staging yet another recovery are dim.  Let’s face it: he had a second chance and blew it. There is nothing the media loves more than a comeback – except maybe an epic scandal.  Now he is left with a broken campaign and poor public image.

The unraveling of this campaign is not a reflection of poor PR tactics, just a poor candidate. The PR team successfully utilized the media to push the new reformed image of Weiner. But when the second scandal hit, there was little they could do to repair it. The media likes to report on trends, digging up old stories and giving them new meaning.

As PR professionals, it is important to remember that journalists do more than report specific events and transactions – they look for the bigger picture.  Coverage of Apple or Samsung, for example, is rarely only about the latest gadget , but rather what makes it new from previous versions, and relevant in the current environment.

Deal of the Week
by Liana Hawes

Write Comment

Jeff Bezos’ purchase of The Washington Post last week was a media darling of a deal.  The waning  newspaper finally got a buyer and to everyone’s surprise  it’s Amazon.com’s  founder who paid $250M for the Pulitzer Prize winning  Daily, once valued at several billion dollars.  Bezos was there to catch the Post in what could have been a steep fall from grace if a buyer didn’t show. Bezos dealt with the Graham Family, the paper’s publishers and operating executives for four generations.

The year 1993 was the height of The Washington Post’s daily circulation which peaked at 843,332 daily subscribers (source: Alliance For Audited Media).  In March 2013, The Post’s daily circulation was 474,767 and was down 7 percent in the first half of 2013. In 2012, the paper had 640 employees. It once had 1,000.  The Washington Post Company reported that it lost $50M in revenue during the first part of the year, because of its newspaper operation.  Despite its legacy and prestige, the Washington Post is now a cash drain.

Large publicly traded companies don’t want their newspaper properties any more.  But small private investors do. Bezos, however, is not just any investor. If you look at his personal wealth, this $250M price was not a big purchase , a drop in the bucket for Bezos.   There’s six degrees of separation and, if you read between the lines, the purchase is not that surprising.

What does Jeff Bezos, a techie entrepreneur/billionaire  possibly want with a newspaper property with declining circulation and advertising?  Bezos is a media mogul who changed the book publishing industry and managed to make Amazon into a brand giant and household name –  and himself a billionaire in the process through Amazon’s various operating entities.  Who has not bought a book from Amazon or gone shopping on the site?   If Bezos hasn’t made Amazon.com consistently profitable, he has made it  valuable as a brand giant, an in-your-face always-on digital media company.

Whether we can expect that The Post, which won a Pulitzer Prize for breaking a key Watergate story in 1973, has any hope for a bright future, let’s watch and see if the sale signifies, “The beginning of a phase in which this Gilded Age’s major beneficiaries reinvest in the infrastructure of our public intelligence,” as  stated by The Atlantic editor James Fallows who’ said the deal put him in a ‘state of shock’, according to an August 5 story in The New York Times Dealbook column.

When a media or communications company invests in or acquires a content company or digital media property,  typically a subscriber base is  co-opted such that existing content and programming expands to a new audience of consumers creating revenue growth opportunities CPMs.  Media conglomerates, therefore, are one of the most heavily regulated sectors.  Their ownership of the airwaves and broadcast networks monopolized access and control of public communication to serve their own commercial interests.  Aside from broadband and cable, where are new audiences to be found?  Where will those 474,767 Post subscribers go, along with those of their sister properties?  Where will The Post’s find a new audience for its editorial content?

Look no further than behind the LDC screen of your Kindle digital reader.  What better medium to deliver and promote news product.    If you are one of the 22 millions owners of an Amazon Kindle devices, you may soon find yourself  a subscriber to The Post and its sister publishing businesses ( also included in the $250M price).  And don’t be surprised if a Post story pops-up during your online shopping experience on Amazon.com.  A digital content distribution model such would not be  rocket science especially for Bezos, who is credited  with changing  consumerism.  All speculative at this point since Bezos himself (not his company) was the purchaser.  But just how will Bezos leverage his new toy from an operations standpoint?    How much fun is there to be had with this new toy?  There could be six degrees of separation?

Now here’s another angle that was investigated by NPR’s media correspondent David Folkenflik, who looked at this deal from the standpoint of intellectual property and sales tax.  This report revealed Amazon to be a major vendor of cloud storage to the CIA which paid Amazon $600M to build its cloud storage system.   While it may be a large storage provider to the CIA, Amazon wants nothing to do with Wikileaks, which it booted from its web hosting service Amazon Web Services back in 2010 at the height of public interest in Wikileaks.  You might think Bezos is new to Washington but his Company had no problem following  the directive of Senator Joe Leiberman when he called for retaliatory action against Wikileaks.  Amazon Web Services stated that Wikileaks violated its terms of service because it “doesn’t own or otherwise control all the rights to the classified content” and that the 250 classified docs that Wikilieaks was publishing was not “redacted in such a way that they were not putting innocent people in jeopardy.”

Whatever the reasons or the way the language is written, Washington may not be such an unfamiliar ground Bezos and his purchase of the Graham enterprise is more of a power shift than a good will purchase of a curious new toy.

Doomsday! Paul Farrell Leads the Naysayers in the Financial Media
by Hugh Burnham

Write Comment

For those of us who are fans of Dow Jones MarketWatch, the world’s largest financial website and a former CBS property that built a huge following with its insightful news coverage in the early dot com days and grew with fine financial reporting, Paul Farrell represents an odd type of journalist. His bylines, that come out of his home in scenic San Luis Obispo, foretell horrible market meltdowns that continually attract fearful eyeballs from investors worried about a market crash, but rarely come to fruition.  His latest missive Stock roller coaster set for sickening drop, like most of his articles, plays on our fears of a market crash, yet presents little in the way of any kind of data to support his theories.

Unlike his colleagues at MarketWatch who rely on P/E ratios and technical market indicators, Farrell’s pieces start with a comparison (in this case to the Kingda Ka Rollercoaster) and end with the fear that this market may drop and may drop violently – soon.  The only problem is that Farrell is only right once every few years when we hit a bear market. In point of fact, his pieces have been warning investors about the impending collapse of the market since the Dow closed  below 6600 in 2009 until today when it stood near 15500. Yet Farrell’s pieces continually garner more eyeballs than the data-driven musings of fellow MarketWatch prognosticators Mark Hulbert or Herb Greenberg, who joined CNBC in 2010 after a brief stint starting a research firm.

Financial reporters are always rewarded for “moving markets” or stocks.  Greenberg made his name by aggressively investigating companies that looked fishy, such as AremisSoft, where he started an investigation and the SEC eventually sued for fraud. “Moving markets” is what gets people to read.  But if the goal of these financial destinations is to move markets rather than to report on facts,  perhaps the public is not being served well. Barron’s notorious bear Bill Alpert once told me never to contact him with information about a company with a high P/E ratio.  No wonder then, that he told investors that Tesla shares could be a sell back in June, when the shares were trading around 100. As I look at the aftermarket screen of the shares following another unexpected blowout quarter, the shares sit at 150. And Alpert’s bearishness is not confined to Tesla.  He has twice gone after the biggest name in financial journalism, Jim Cramer, most famously in his 2007 cover story, Shorting Cramer, where he argued that the Mad Money host’s picks had underperformed the market.

So why is all of this interesting?  It’s not really new news. Nouriel Roubini, aka Dr. Doom, has been predicting a market meltdown for more than 15 years. And he also predicted the great recession. The only problem is that he has been predicting another meltdown ever since – and it has not happened. Why do doomsayers like Roubini, or Harry Dent remain relevant? Why do people continue to believe in the musings of journalists with questionable track records?  The answer may lie in our psyche. We can’t look away. We have to read about plane crashes.  And our fear of the unknown makes us susceptible to reading doomsday prognostications, the same way we watch horror movies. Paul Farrell’s articles continually make the best read of MarketWatch’s pieces. And yet, his credibility and lack of supporting data should make him their worst read!  Yet, his face is there in the top 5 pieces, day after day.  Writing about bad news is big business.  Just don’t believe the hype. If you need a dose of doomsday, try Nat Geo’s show Doomsday Preppers.  Bunker not included!

3 Ways to Maximize Impact with Space
by Max Liberty-Point

Write Comment

As a designer, I’m constantly figuring out how to use space.  Sometimes I’m restricted to a tiny area, other times the workable space is limitless.  Whatever the circumstance, there is a challenge to using a space correctly and doing so allows for maximum impact in any medium.  And let’s not discriminate; even non-designers deal with space in their word documents and PowerPoints, so I want to offer three tips for anyone interested in capitalizing on composition:

1. The Golden Rule Ratio

There is actually a remarkable spacing rule found right in nature.  It’s called the “Golden Ratio” and it can be traced onto everything from plants to seashells to the galaxy to our own DNA.  Expressed numerically, the ratio is 1:1.618 and when some of man’s most famous works are measured, this ratio is evident.

An example of a way you can apply the Golden Ratio is to achieve ultimate readability through textual line spacing.   If a body of text is using a font size of 16pt, multiply that by 1.618 and you have your optimal line height, 25.888 or 26pt.

2. Less is More

The use of empty space, or “white space” as it’s called in the design world, is often unnoticed to the average viewer.  And though it might seem like a result of not using all the space provided, white space actually allows for a more impactful message.  When used correctly, white space can add emphasis to a subject, it can balance a layout, it can improve readability, and it can express sophistication and elegance. Take a look at Apple.com’s landing page and notice the aforementioned characteristics.

Try using white space in your next PowerPoint presentation to stress a point or to add emphasis to a subject.


3. Negative Can Be Positive

A technique that has always had a profound effect on me when I see it is the deliberate use of negative space.  Negative space, in design, is the space around the main subject of the visual.  Using this space effectively can send a clever message while still remaining visually simple and easy on the eyes.  Also, the viewer can feel a sense of accomplishment for noticing the use of negative space, which adds a positive association to your business or publication.  See if you can spot the use of negative space in these example logos.

While this technique takes some artistic skill, consider it when conceptualizing a logo or your next advertisement. Those who notice will be delightfully surprised. If you can’t achieve this effect on your own, perhaps you can hire someone who can.

The Value of “Getting” PR
by Mike Gallo

Write Comment

There’s an interesting article this week in VentureBeat, entitled Why PR is your best marketing weapon — and how to use it.  It’s worth a read.

It outlines what happened to a 1990s tech startup called Seer Technologies when it took an overly cautious approach to PR.  Here are some key points from the article, which highlight some very common misperceptions about PR.

  • We assumed that business success would automatically translate into recognition.  And we were overly cautious about what we said in public—so that we were “known for the right things”.
  • We turned down many interview requests, and carefully scripted our answers to the ones we did accept.
  • The result was predictable: Over a period of six years, our company was featured in 20 to 30 articles in total.  And these were mostly in small trade publications or the local press.

Sound familiar?  Unfortunately, this is how so many companies today still manage the PR function.

Let’s consider what happens when a company takes the opposite approach.  The author then compares this cautious approach to what happened when he made the strategic decision when promoting his 1997 start-up, Relativity Technologies, to embrace PR.  He would “talk about whatever the media was interested in,” rather than just the company’s own product.

Here’s what happened.

  • We would have a policy of being accessible to and totally open with the media, customers, and investors.
  • We decided that Relativity’s best buzz generator would be our staff of Russian programmers, who had formerly performed top-secret coding for the Russian military and intelligence.
  • We began selling ourselves as an exciting company with a James Bond edge.

As you might imagine, the results were outstanding – top tier business press, appearances on major TV networks, a flood of enquiries from potential customers, employees, and so on.   This underscores the value of good PR, and is shows what’s possible when management really “gets” it.

So, as PR practitioners, it may be important to focus on the mechanics of a PR program, i.e. goal setting, metrics, milestones, announcements, etc.  However, it should also be our responsibility to educate clients on some of the intangible qualities of PR, and what we need from them to make a program work.  Although we – as PR practitioners – may instinctively know what’s going to “work” with the media, our clients do not necessarily have that experience and knowledge base, and we shouldn’t assume that they do.

This VentureBeat article provides a great comparison of how a willingness to prioritize PR from a strategic level, be creative, take risks and join the broader business conversation will pay dividends over the long run.  Taking a more narrow approach will be far less valuable, and will translate into fewer meaningful results.

Check out two of our recent case studies, here and here, which highlight some creative approaches to PR that we developed with our clients, and see what we were able to achieve on their behalf.

Do you (or your clients) really “get” PR, or are you just going through the motions?

The Power of PR: Spinning an Embarrassing Moment into a Career Changer
by Andria Barrera

Write Comment

On last week’s Miss USA pageant, Miss Connecticut Erin Brady took home the crown. However, America and the media are recognizing third place winner Marissa Powell, Miss Utah, just as much if not more than Ms. Brady. After being tormented on numerous news website, YouTube and becoming an overnight internet sensation, it seems that Miss Utah is having the last laugh as she circulates all the big named television and radio shows.

There is no doubt she is gorgeous and the camera loves her, but that wasn’t enough to overshadow her epic mishap on a significant pageant question that may or may not have cost her the crown on Sunday night. When asked about gender wage inequality, Powell stumbled on her words and her response made absolutely no sense. But, overnight it seems her PR people have worked their magic, turning an embarrassing situation into a career changing milestone. This is a good example of the power of public relations.

Ms. Powell’s P.R. team has capitalized on her 15 minutes of fame, turning an embarrassing situation into a positive and possibly a career changing opportunity. Hitting an extensive media tour, which is normally reserved just for the winner of Miss USA, Powell has been seen on all the big named shows: “Today Show,” “Inside Edition,” and “Jimmy Kimmel Live.” Not to mention she has also called into radio interviews to increase her publicity.

This is just the beginning for Ms. Powell, her team has recognized the opportunity this attention has handed her and has spun a negative into a positive. With the increase in publicity comes popularity,  and who knows where she’ll go from here.  My bet is reality show offers will start rolling in, endorsement deals with make-up companies, and maybe even broadcasting gigs. This is not to mention the positive influence she can be on those who are bullied, as she was criticized and taunted significantly post-pageant and has come out on top. A lesson many young girls and boys can learn from. Now that her P.R. team has played this perfectly, her future opportunities are endless when they might have looked doomed on Sunday night.

Product Pitches: Three Steps to Success
by Kasey Backherms

Write Comment

One of the most difficult tasks for a PR professional handling a technology company’s communication program is garnering interest around a product update announcement. In the eyes of your client, it is one of the most important types of coverage they will receive because of the immediate value it creates for the sales team.  However, there is often a disconnect between the value a client receives from the coverage, and the real “news value” to a reporter.

Given the nature of the announcement, skeptical reporters will ignore your pitch altogether, or respond to tell you they don’t cover product news.  However, some will follow up with a series of fairly predictable questions.  Your success with the announcement will hinge on how well you are prepared to respond.

Keep in mind, there is a time element working against you.  If you don’t respond to reporters rapidly, the window of opportunity closes. In dealing with this scenario time and time again, here are three sure fire questions that you can expect from reporters and editors, and how you can be ready to ensure that your client is getting the editorial exposure they deserve.

Do they have a customer reference?

Reporters are trying to create something of interest to their readers, so many times they will ask for customer case studies or will want to talk to a customer directly in order to tell more of a “real life” story.  While many customers are not always available or reluctant to disclose their use of a product, some will see it as an opportunity for positive exposure.  Be ready for this question, and have the details at the ready when a reporter asks.  It will strike further interest, and will most likely lead to editorial coverage.

Can I see the press release?

When pitching the media prior to the announcement date under embargo, it is critical to have a working draft or final draft of the product announcement at the ready. Many time reporters will only ask for the release to preview and draft their stories on this without even taking a briefing. Once you have gained partial interest from them by asking for an embargoed release, stalling on it like shooting yourself in the foot.

Do you have any photos or screenshots?

Visual aids are always a plus to have as additional information that can be quickly sent to reporters and editors. Many times in drafting their stories around the product announcement, reporters will ask for screenshots of the product dashboard and even headshots of executives that are being quoted in the piece. Having these resources at the ready before a dialogue begins with the media can make a dramatic difference for the better the quality of the editorial coverage.

Is There Any Value in LinkedIn Endorsements?
by John Kreuzer

7 Comments

Last September, LinkedIn rolled out Endorsements, a convenient way to endorse your connections’ skills with just one click. As we typically see when new features are released, the feedback hasn’t been the greatest:

“LinkedIn is trying to be more like Facebook, and this is their ‘like.’

“They’re watered-down recommendations.”

“They don’t serve any useful purpose.”

If you haven’t been kept up to date, here’s the 411 on LinkedIn Endorsements. Endorsements let your LinkedIn connections vote up your skills and areas of expertise. Your skills are then ranked and re-ranked based on how many people have endorsed them, with their profile pictures appearing next to each skill. Your connections can also add new skills to your profile that they’d like to endorse.

According to LinkedIn’s Help Center:

Skill endorsements are a great way to recognize your first-degree connections’ skills and expertise with one click. They also let your connections validate the strengths found on your own profile. Skill endorsements are a simple and effective way of building your professional brand and engaging your network.

When you’re a first-degree connection of somebody and go to their LinkedIn profile page, you are presented with a list of five skills from that person’s profile and asked if they have these certain skills. You then have the ability to endorse any or all of these skills in the box. Since Endorsements involve just a single mouse-click, I can quickly endorse 50 people in just 5 minutes, without even breaking a sweat. And guess what…the person I just endorsed will receive an email that I’ve endorsed them. Maybe now they might return the favor. Why not? It’s so easy!

I’ll admit that endorsing others is an easy way to recognize colleagues for the skills I’ve seen them demonstrate. It helps contribute to the strength of their profile, and increases the probability they’ll be discovered for opportunities related to their skills. It also helps keep strong connections with the people in my network. I’ve found that after I’ve endorsed a former colleague, it’s been much easier for me to reach out to them because I’ve recently been in touch.

With that being said, I still believe that LinkedIn endorsements don’t provide as much value as they could. I find Endorsements to be more of a “recommendation lite” than anything else. If you want to recommend somebody for their work and/or skills, you should take the time to write one. Sure, it’s not one-click, but your recommendation will be more powerful, meaningful and beneficial to your connection.

At first, I was an active participant in endorsing my connections for skills that I thought they had. I didn’t spend a lot of time actually putting thought into the endorsements I was making. If they said they were good at a certain skill, obviously they were good at it, right? Moving forward, I am not going to endorse any skill that I haven’t had the opportunity to actually see someone demonstrate firsthand. I should have been doing this all along, but like others, I just got lazy. I’m not sure everyone will use the same level of care that I do, but I hope that users will actually spend a little time before they just click their mouse to automatically endorse a connection.

If you’re one of those LinkedIn users who are looking to turn off Endorsements, Kristin Burnham at CIO has a great article which provides step-by-step instructions. Check it out!

Have you found the LinkedIn Endorsements to be helpful or do you think they are of little value? Any and all comments are welcome.

Controlling the Media Message: The Angelina Effect
by Danielle Giaccio

Write Comment

This past week, the world was shocked to find out that one of the entertainment world’s most popular and sexiest woman, Angelina Jolie, had undergone a double mastectomy. When people think of Angelina, they can’t help but think of her “killer body” but also, they think of a woman who has made it a point to do good in this world and use her celebrity status to do that. Angelina did something a lot of celebrities choose to do in a world where one tweet can lead to a full blown scandal if not perceived correctly by the general public – she got in front of the message.

Angelina JolieAngelina chose to write an op-ed in the New York Times, on “My Medical Choice” to own the story and control her message, rather than having the media control the message for her. Often times when a celebrity gets in front of something, such as a scandal or big public announcement, it is easier to control the message they want to get out there. Rather than having some hospital worker leak a story and have it on the front page of Star Magazine, she chose to bravely tell her story and get the message out there that she is strong, in better health, and is telling story directly, rather than have someone else speculate on the facts.

In PR, whether dealing with a person or a business, it is important for PR professionals to advise clients on the best way to control the media message. Angelina’s PR team clearly went the right route by putting Angelina “front and center” to own her decision and spin it in a way that’s positive and inspiring to others.

Angelina’s PR team also did the right thing by putting her in a light that made her seem like every other woman. They made her more relatable than she’s ever been.  The general public has a tendency to view celebrities as “superhuman,” so Angelina’s decision to publicize her story in a personal way made her struggle the same as any woman in Minnesota, or Alabama, or New York. She became a voice for all women struggling to make the same decision and she used her celebrity stature to not only control what the media would say, but to also use her voice to help others.

Angelina’s message was simple; this happened to me, I am strong, and I am going to use my voice to tell other woman in similar situations that there are other options. Her words struck a chord with many breast cancer survivors and victims and definitely brought a bigger conversation to light as women can see this is a viable option if you are someone who carries that gene.

At Gutenberg, we are proud to represent HERS Breast Cancer Foundation, an organization aimed at supporting all women healing from breast cancer by providing post-surgical products and services regardless of financial status.

We have had the pleasure of working with women who are survivors of this disease and who work tirelessly to promote awareness and help women in need of treatment or care options. We all owe a great gratitude to Angelina for not only bringing the conversation to the forefront, but also for controlling the message and letting people know that her struggle is one of many and that it does get better.


Subscribe by email:



Web Analytics