{"id":13645,"date":"2022-02-15T21:24:06","date_gmt":"2022-02-15T21:24:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mailinvest.blog\/index.php\/2022\/02\/15\/reinventing-the-digital-experience-platform\/"},"modified":"2022-02-15T21:24:06","modified_gmt":"2022-02-15T21:24:06","slug":"reinventing-the-digital-experience-platform","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mailinvest.blog\/index.php\/2022\/02\/15\/reinventing-the-digital-experience-platform\/","title":{"rendered":"Reinventing the digital experience platform"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a>\n<\/p>\n

\n

Over the past couple of years, research firms Gartner, Forrester, and others have heralded the arrival of digital experience platforms (DXPs); the future is now and all that (for a DXP primer, you might enjoy Pamela Parker\u2019s article<\/a>). But practically speaking, is there such a thing as a digital experience platform? As Tony Byrne<\/a> of the Real Story Group (and a MarTech contributor) said in 2018, referencing Gartner\u2019s Magic Quadrant for DXPs, put it: \u201cNo enterprise digital leader in her right mind would actually purchase \u2018digital experience\u2019 as a platform. DX is a strategy and approach, and no single platform or vendor on this chart will get you there.\u201d<\/p>\n

Digital experience platform evolution<\/h2>\n

The days of monolithic all-in-one platforms are fading. Marketing technology vendors are moving toward \u201ccomposability,\u201d which offers marketers the freedom of choice they want by selecting best-of-need products that best suit their marketing organization and business needs. This is a shift from the monolithic approach, where companies rely on a single vendor for their system. Of course, the single-vendor method might be suitable for the procurement folks, but it can introduce risk to the business, as I discussed in this article<\/a>. Plus, in many cases, customers are not getting the full breadth of features, functionality and ROI from their single-vendor martech investments.<\/p>\n

An early example of DXP evolution comes from web content management (WCM) vendors, creating complex suites that combine features of WCM, digital asset management (DAM), portal, personalization, analytics, and more. In some cases, these \u201cintegrated\u201d suites are natively nothing more than a collection of acquired point solutions that form what the vendor calls a digital experience platform.<\/p>\n

Stitching those disparate products together to create a unicorn solution is an integration partner\u2019s dream but, in too many cases, a CMO\u2019s nightmare. The work can be complex, time-consuming and expensive, and the results frequently fail to deliver on the promise. In the 2021 CMSWire State of Digital Customer Experience report, 80% of the 1,300+ digital customer experience execs surveyed responded that their digital experience was \u201cvery\u201d to \u201cextremely important\u201d to their organizations. That said, only 11% believed their tools were \u201cworking well,\u201d while 42% said their tools \u201cneed work.\u201d<\/p>\n

Introducing composability<\/h2>\n

An excellent example of composability in action is the evolution of the legacy content management system (CMS). The monolithic CMS integrates content, images, HTML, and CSS and provides a Graphical User Interface (GUI) to help non-technical users create and publish content. Unfortunately, it\u2019s virtually impossible to leverage a content re-use strategy since code and content are combined.<\/p>\n

To remedy this problem and provide developers with a composable method of flexing their innovation chops, vendors introduced the decoupled CMS. This flexible front-end and structured back-end model promoted faster development, redesigns, upgrades, and new site rollouts, leaving content and development teams to work independently and more efficiently. In this CMS incarnation, the front and back ends are separate, which means developers could try new frameworks and tools without impacting the site\u2019s content.<\/p>\n

Then came the headless CMS, a back-end-only solution that stores content and distributes it via RESTful API. Using a headless approach, marketers could syndicate centrally-managed content to websites, mobile apps, digital signage, car dash displays, or other endpoints. There\u2019s no presentation layer provided with a headless CMS, leaving developers the latitude to handle presentation in whatever way best suits the requirements du jour.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, throughout this evolutionary process, the need to create and manage remarkable customer experiences to acquire, convert, and retain customers continued to explode. The lines between decoupled and headless blurred, and even monolithic CMS offerings began to morph. Legacy CMS vendors returned to the drawing board while innovative new players entered the market. More martech vendors were adopting the concept of composable solutions.<\/p>\n

Composable DXP adoption: Resistance is futile<\/h2>\n

The aggressive push to drive DXP adoption is underway, and it\u2019s working. Global research and consulting firm Verified Market Research says the Global Digital Experience Platform Market<\/a> size was valued at USD 15.88 Billion in 2020 and projected to reach USD 43.43 Billion by 2028, growing at a CAGR of 13.4% from 2021 to 2028.\u00a0<\/p>\n

However, along with all the hype, there\u2019s some confusion. Gartner<\/a> defines the DXP thus: \u201cA digital experience platform (DXP) is an integrated set of core technologies that support the composition, management, delivery and optimization of contextualized digital experiences.\u201d But as mentioned above, there\u2019s a big question; should those \u201ccore technologies\u201d be integrated into a monolithic, all-in-one platform, or should the \u201ccore technologies\u201d be represented by a collection of point solutions assembled on a best-of-breed basis?<\/p>\n

Composability and the martech stack<\/h2>\n

Over time, some legacy CMS vendors like Sitecore, Optimizely (formerly Episerver) and Progress Software\u2019s Sitefinity have reinvented their platforms to fit into a DXP box, while newcomers like Contentful, Contentstack and Storyblok are driving in new directions. One thing is sure; it looks like composability is here to stay.<\/p>\n

The concept is even finding its way into the board room as a future-proof schema for the post-COVID enterprise. Gartner says, \u201cComposable business means creating an organization made from interchangeable building blocks. The modular setup enables a business to rearrange and reorient as needed depending on external (or internal) factors like a shift in customer values or sudden change in supply chain or materials.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

Gartner identifies three building blocks of the composable business: composable thinking, composable business architecture and composable technologies. COVID seems to have accelerated this model in companies that may have lagged in building out their functional digital knowledge and martech muscles.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n

Get the daily newsletter digital marketers rely on.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Modular is better<\/h2>\n

Building modular, or composable, technology stacks has always been a great idea, though early on, it wasn\u2019t as palatable as it is today. Plus, as I\u2019ve said here, there\u2019s been some advancement of functional digital knowledge in many organizations that\u2019s driven new ways of thinking and working, including selecting various best-of-need martech tools from different vendors to build out the martech stack.<\/p>\n

As Mark Demeny, director of product management at Optimizely, says, \u201cDealing with one vendor is perhaps a little bit safer. For example, the customer can work with one vendor and one renewal cycle instead of six. But while it\u2019s easier for procurement, it may not be easier from an implementation perspective, depending on how well the martech vendor has assembled its product offering. Ultimately, it comes down to the preference of the buyer and the skill set of their organization.\u201d<\/p>\n

Keep in mind that things could get complex \u2014 expensive \u2014 when rolling your own composable DXP. In fact, according to Real Story Group\u2019s Byrne, some customers \u201care spending 2-6x more on initial implementation services than they do on licensing costs. Same for outbound marketing and e-commerce projects. SaaS vendors with more productized, multi-tenant solutions talk about \u2018quick start\u2019 projects with light professional services fees, but the \u2018MVPs\u2019 that results tend to be long on the M and light on the V.\u201d<\/p>\n

Read next: Does your marketing team need a digital experience platform?<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Avoiding the composable DXP trap<\/h2>\n

To increase your chances of success and reduce risk when building out your composable DXP, consider the following:<\/p>\n

Choose your best-of-need solutions carefully<\/strong>. That includes following the advice in this article<\/a>, including:<\/p>\n