This insightful piece by @TonyByrne is painfully on point. Headless content delivery is a really valuable tool in the toolbox, but doctrinaire approaches to structure tend to fail when they hit real-world marketing and comms requirements… https://martech.org/the-future-of-headless-web-content-management/
One of the reasons that “headless” is a tricky label for decoupled content delivery is that — if taken literally — it frames a necessary step in multi-channel content reuse as a goal in and of itself, a Correct Way To Do Things™, and rejects many necessary use cases as Wrong™
I tend to feel that’s not inherent to any particular technical architecture, but it’s extremely tempting for any team who’s differentiated themselves from competition (or prior in-house efforts) by going all-in with a particular approach.
We’ve worked with a lot of teams on @autogram_is projects that have run smack into these difficulties; the highly-structured presentation-agnostic approach is excellent for consistent high-volume content that is pushed out to many channels.
Component-y page-building tools are solid for one-off web-only content these days. The really pressing challenge today is the middle zone: orgs that produce content with structural and presentation variation AND high enough volume that they can’t just throw FEDs at each one.
The work going on in the world of design systems is a promising fit for that problem, but most of the work in that space is focused on application UX rather than complex longform content — content that contains many components rather than living inside a component.
In conclusion, it’s always Interesting Times Club™ for structured content nerds.