Headless architecture has gained significant traction in recent years, often touted as a modern solution for dynamic content management. But while headless CMS and other headless systems offer compelling benefits, it’s really important for us to recognise that this architecture, although currently very on trend – is not a necessity for every business.
The ability to decouple the front end from the back end, enabling content delivery through APIs, appeals to companies looking for flexibility across multiple platforms. However, headless architecture isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution, and, in certain cases, we’d say ‘tread with caution’ – as it may introduce more complexity than benefits.
Consider cost.
Separating the front and back ends typically means hosting and maintaining two distinct systems, which can increase infrastructure costs. Headless solutions require robust hosting environments for API management, content storage, and sometimes even dedicated serverless functions or microservices for specific features. This dual-hosting model can drive up expenses, particularly for smaller businesses or startups with limited budgets. Additionally, headless architecture may introduce higher development costs, as creating custom front-ends for each platform adds to the time and resources required.
The development effort involved in building and maintaining a headless system is another factor that businesses should carefully consider. A Headless CMS requires developers to build front ends from scratch for each platform or channel. This can lead to longer development cycles and may require specialised skills in front-end frameworks and API management. For companies without in-house development teams or the budget to hire experienced developers, the headless approach can present a significant barrier to entry.
While headless architecture is excellent for companies with complex, multi-platform needs, many businesses can achieve their goals with traditional, monolithic CMS systems at a fraction of the cost and complexity.
Be aware.
Headless can lead some organisations to invest in it without a clear need, only to find that a simpler setup could have met their requirements more efficiently. For businesses prioritising content-driven websites without complex omnichannel requirements, a traditional CMS can often provide ample flexibility and control without the added cost and complexity.
Framework has developed multiple websites with headless architecture, such as Leicester College, CPD Match and Flying High Futures. Our most recent project needed to withstand high levels of site traffic during short bursts of time. During our client’s last live event, the site successfully accommodated 9 million site visits.
So, while headless definitely has its place, here at Framework you’ll always get an objective view on the tech stack. It’s essential to work with a website agency who will work with you, to weigh up all the pros and cons, before adopting a specific CMS solution.
Get in touch to talk about your website project.
