Lately we've been getting a bit of pressure from the business to use Target as a CMS to deploy new features to 100% of the traffic. Some requests are especially complex in terms of development effort. The reason for this is the IT department isn't as quick as us Target Team are in developing, and naturally it requires a big investment from the business. We are pushing back strongly saying this is not what Target is designed for, but I was wondering if you could share with me exactly what the risks and limitations are of using Target as a CMS, or point me to resources that can help? Thanks in advance for the help!
Solved! Go to Solution.
First a shout-out for having the correct frame of mind: "We are pushing back strongly saying this is not what Target is designed for" Another caveat I see is over-time and many changes performance impact. Take the following. We want to modify content on URL1 to change the header from saying Hi to saying Hello.
Option1: Edit the site code and make the change.
Benefits: This is the right way to make this change.
Disadvantages: You need to wait for the right peopel to make the change.
Option2: Create a new activity and make the change in one of the activity experiences then direct everybody to that activity experience.
Benefits: This is the fast way to make this change.
Disadvantages: Probably against your internal security rules. Puts undue burden on the Adobe Target platform and it not being used to serve legitimate targeting content. Data is being collected in reporting for no real reason and adds overhead to your website load time as you are now involving a third party in the content deliver side. Requires that the activity continues to run for ever. If anybody ever de-activates the activity or if anything happens on Target site your changes are no longer there. So many disadvantages.
Those are some things that stand out to me that I would recommend to keep in mind.
Mihnea Docea | Technical Support Consultant | Customer Experience | Adobe | (:: 1 (800) 497-0335
Hi Milliec,
this is a common usecase for any testing tool, at least to my experience.
It becomes risky when you have to many "content-elements" that are managed by Target on the site and forget about them. The effort to maintain everything within Target can be substantial. And of course from a performance perspective, Target as a client-side technology is not as fast or reliable as a normal CMS would be.
That sad, as you mentioned, the speed and flexibility that a testing tool is providing, is usually unmatched so go ahead and make the most out of it :-)
Best
Moritz
First a shout-out for having the correct frame of mind: "We are pushing back strongly saying this is not what Target is designed for" Another caveat I see is over-time and many changes performance impact. Take the following. We want to modify content on URL1 to change the header from saying Hi to saying Hello.
Option1: Edit the site code and make the change.
Benefits: This is the right way to make this change.
Disadvantages: You need to wait for the right peopel to make the change.
Option2: Create a new activity and make the change in one of the activity experiences then direct everybody to that activity experience.
Benefits: This is the fast way to make this change.
Disadvantages: Probably against your internal security rules. Puts undue burden on the Adobe Target platform and it not being used to serve legitimate targeting content. Data is being collected in reporting for no real reason and adds overhead to your website load time as you are now involving a third party in the content deliver side. Requires that the activity continues to run for ever. If anybody ever de-activates the activity or if anything happens on Target site your changes are no longer there. So many disadvantages.
Those are some things that stand out to me that I would recommend to keep in mind.
Mihnea Docea | Technical Support Consultant | Customer Experience | Adobe | (:: 1 (800) 497-0335
Thank you both Minhnea and Moritz!
I wanted to summarise some points that will form part of the argument, in case they are useful to somebody else.
Furthermore, to also kill the counter-argument "But can't we treat it like a personalisation and push to 100% of the traffic?, we have also defined personalisation as an activity that delivers bespoke content to an audience using an existing component (as opposed to a new one created via Target).
Have a good day,
Millie
Views
Like
Replies
Views
Likes
Replies