Headless is not a universal answer — be clear about the relationship between content and presentation first.
Headless is not a universal answer — be clear about the relationship between content and presentation first.
A headless CMS decouples content management from presentation, delivering content over APIs so the front end can use any stack. Widely discussed, but not right for every case.
Good fit: one content set must feed a website, mini-program, app and third-party channels; the front-end stack needs to stay under your control; performance and CDN static delivery matter a lot.
Poor fit: editors need WYSIWYG page building; the site structure is fixed and small; there are no engineers to maintain a custom front end.
Note the trade-off: headless pushes presentation responsibility to the front end and takes WYSIWYG away from editors. That cost should be explicit in your evaluation.
A middle path is a traditional CMS with API output — keeping visual editing while leaving the door open for multi-channel distribution.