Close-Up: Live issue - When is it sensible to opt for a roster?

After Twinings opted to split between three agencies, Noel Bussey looks at the logic behind rosters.

Last week, after a long five-month review, the tea company Twinings - which has an account worth just under pounds 3 million, according to the most recent Nielsen figures - decided that it just couldn't do with one agency, or two for that matter, and put together a roster of three.

And the list includes the start-up of the moment, Adam & Eve, the UK's largest agency, Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO, and WCRS, a top ten agency.

Rosters have always been common practice, but mostly they are built out of necessity because the company has too many brands and too many markets for one agency, or even network, to handle.

However, it is uncommon for a small client because rosters can be extremely problematic. First, they don't offer the portfolio-thinking that a single agency can.

There is also the danger of the 'ferret in a sack approach', as one industry insider puts it, which sees the roster agencies consistently battling each other, often to the detriment of the business and the relationship with the agencies.

This can take the form of sneaky approaches to the client on another roster agency's business or attempts to 'shake business loose'. Also, clients can cause themselves problems by putting every piece of business up to pitch; GM was notorious for making Lowe and Delany Lund Knox Warren & Partners consistently go head to head.