Headless CMS. Perhaps you don't need it?

What is a headless CMS?

A headless CMS is a system that stores and organises your content in a way that separates the data from the actual appearance, or "head", of the website.

In a traditional CMS, such as WordPress or Craft CMS, the data (like text, images and videos) and the visual layer (how the website looks to the user) are combined in one solution.

With a headless CMS, the content is stored independently of how it is displayed, the idea being that the same content can be used on several different platforms and devices – for example a website, a mobile app, or even an information screen at an airport.

The advantages of a headless CMS are therefore primarily relevant for organisations that need to publish the same content on many different platforms. If your website is the main platform, a traditional CMS can cover the needs in a considerably simpler and more cost-effective way.

Headless, flexibility, scalability

It has never been hard to find buzzwords in the technology industry. Headless is no exception, so let us first look at what the term means.

The classic way of building websites consists of one server. This server held the data, the data structure and the visual shell (front end) of the website together. Someone came up with the idea that the body could metaphorically be seen as the data, and the head as the front end (the visual layer). The reason the head should be separable from the rest was that the head could in some cases turn out to be a website, but other times an app, or perhaps a TV screen at an airport.

So far so good. The idea was that server number one is limited to structure and data only, and all the visual packaging is solved separately (if we stick with the website example, you then need an extra web server for it).

Advantages without practical value

Although the theory of separating data and visual packaging may sound logical, in reality it often results in more technology for the same result.

Let's say Customer Ltd has a website and CMS today, and wants a new website. An agency puts forward a headless system as the best choice because it also allows extensions in every direction in the future. Lots of possibilities sounds nice, but in reality it is not based on actual needs, and you are complicating the technology early on.

Dare to ask the question: What concrete benefits do we get by moving to a headless CMS? Not in a potential future, but here and now.

Poor comparisons

Articles about the advantages of headless systems often compare them with WordPress, or similar systems with limited possibilities for structured content. Sometimes they are also compared with Squarespace, Wix or other systems operating in a different price segment.

In our view, no-code solutions such as Squarespace, Wix and Webflow are not comparable. These are usually in a much lower price segment (often under NOK 100,000), while websites with headless systems such as Sanity, Contentful, Prismic, Payload or similar are usually well above this price bracket.

As for WordPress, much of the same argumentation applies, though it can more often be in a similar price bracket. In those cases there is a big difference in how well structured the data can be in a WordPress site compared with, say, Sanity. There is no doubt Sanity has major advantages here. Still, it must not be swept under the rug that many traditional CMSes are substantially better at structured content than WordPress.

If you compare Sanity with Craft CMS, for example, many of the advantages around structured data start to fall apart. And when you also consider that several traditional CMSes (like Craft CMS again) can be used not only as a monolithic CMS (head included), but actually also headless if desired, the picture shifts.

In short: be wary of comparisons. Even if a modern headless system looks much better than an outdated "traditional" CMS, it does not mean the argument for a headless system holds water. There are several modern CMSes that are not headless-first.

Multiple heads do not require a headless system

The advantage of headless systems is often illustrated by a body having many heads, where each head is its own channel. For example 1. a website, 2. TV screens in a building and 3. a native app.

What is not mentioned is that this is also entirely possible without using a headless system. Again, as per the previous point, many modern CMSes let you share data via API endpoints to any destination, in exactly the same way a headless system can. The biggest difference is simply that the website is already included in the package out of the box. A modern but traditional CMS (like Craft CMS) can be seen as a headless system that includes a head from the start, but still with the option of more if desired.

Buzz, trends, AI, the Lindy effect

Sanity is a natural talking point when it comes to headless systems in Norway. Both because it is a Norwegian company, and because they are the industry leader in the field and widely used in the market. Sanity was founded in 2018, making it a very young company. This need not be negative, but it is important to be aware that Sanity has grown at an enormous pace and has large international investors involved. They have had a lot of buzz, spend money on marketing and have gradually become a large company with many employees.

The big question is the long-term outlook in such a case. How realistic is it that a headless CMS can keep up such a growth curve? And with investors and the forces of capitalism combined with the company being young and ambitious, yet facing strong competition – the risk feels significant enough that it should be weighed as a factor.

What is the "Lindy effect", you ask?
The Lindy effect is a theory that things which have existed for a long time are more likely to last even longer. It means that systems which have stood the test of time are often more reliable.

AI and ownership of data

In a headless CMS like Sanity, your data is stored in what they call a 'Content Lake' on their servers. This means your business does not have full control over where the data is stored, which can be a risk if you want full ownership of your information.

We consider this problematic. You deserve full control and ownership of your own data. If you want full control of your data, on a server of your own choosing, that should be possible. Unfortunately that is not possible with Sanity. As they say themselves: "The Sanity Content Lake is where your content is stored and accessed. It runs in the cloud and is fully managed by us".

Extend this to the ongoing AI debates and data ownership, and the importance of full control over your own data only increases. The amount of data Sanity will eventually hold in its systems is large, and what they potentially choose to do with that data is a factor you have too little control over.

Doesn't Vasser use headless systems?

Vasser is not against headless systems on principle; we are simply critical of the way they are presented in the industry. We want to bring out a more nuanced picture, and one of the things we dislike most is unnecessary complexity. We have worked both on headless projects in Sanity and on projects where Craft CMS is used headless.

We nevertheless believe it is extremely rarely a necessity for a project, and that it almost always makes projects both more complicated and more expensive, in the short and long term alike.

Summary

A headless CMS can be a good choice for larger organisations with complex needs and many channels. But for smaller businesses or simpler projects, a traditional CMS can be more than sufficient – and far easier to use.