Headless CMS isn’t the best choice for every situation, though: Anyone who only uses one output for their content makes the process unnecessarily complicated by switching to the newer architecture. As a rule, this is because the corresponding servers must do more: costs and efforts both increase. Above all, you have to set up the frontend yourself. With a classic content management system, this work can be spared – the frontend is simply designed by the template engine.
Content creators will also be missing out on a feature that any traditional CMS provides: In a headless CMS, no preview of the posted content is provided. Since the components are separate from one another, the backend doesn’t know anything about how the content should be presented. Decoupled CMS may provide the right balance instead.
The ‘decoupled’ property applies mostly to headless CMS: Backend and frontend are no longer a unit. Progressive decoupling defines a method, though, where the frontend isn’t omitted, but instead APIs are connected. Nothing is cut out, it’s simply extended – so the output still runs via the CMS. Further frontends can dock using a plugin, which creates the interfaces.
In these circumstances, the benefits of a classic CMS are still best: Content is presented via the system’s own engine, including the existing format templates. For example, if you also want to offer your content through an app, then the data can be obtained from an added API. The benefits of headless CMS and classic CMS complement each other in this extended version.