Over the past few years the interaction between the different players of the so called “Decision making square” – that determines the outcome of public decision and policy – has become more and more articulate and less unidirectional. When compared to what happened only a few years ago, when public decision was always reached through a technical and political mediation between the different interest Groups, the situation today is completely different.

The decision making process and the political agenda are in fact influenced – for the most different issues – by the media, by influential players, by the internet, by NGOs, by local Government Authorities, etc..

The Decision making arena has thus become larger, more complex and competitive, and the social “dis-intermediation” has furthermore determined the multiplication of the subjects involved, both as far as interest Groups and those called to control, comment and spread information are concerned. If not properly controlled the mentioned process might lead to:

• A decrease of the rational dimension of those processes building up to a public policy or decision;
• The introduction of emotional elements within the political-institutional interaction.

What emerges is thus a potential crisis of the interest Groups’ influence respect to the past. What follows is the representation of how the “Decision making square” has adjusted to the mentioned changes.

The advocacy activity consists of developing a coordinated and strategically functional net of communication actions, to promote, consolidate or defend an interest – institutionally relevant – belonging to a complex Organization. By guaranteeing a constant and congruent flow of information – that is of course to be also favorable to the interest Group – it is in fact possible to increase the so called “issue salience”, and also the ability of actually influencing public policy.