Why we build a CMS your team can actually use
Most content management problems are not technology problems. They are a mismatch between what a system models and what the business actually does.
Every CMS project we inherit has the same origin story: somebody picked a platform, imported the content, and discovered six months later that the team was pasting formatted text into a single rich-text field because there was nowhere else to put it.
Model the business, not the page
The question that matters is not “what fields does this page need” but “what does an editor change, and how often”. A service page has a summary, a hero, a list of related work; a blog post has an author, a date and a category. Those are different shapes, so they deserve different content types rather than one generic “page” with forty optional fields.
Templates instead of layouts
We give each page a template, and the template declares which fields an editor can change. Adding a new page type is a registry entry and a view — no database migration, no developer ticket, no deployment to add a field.
Make the safe thing the easy thing
Alt text is a field, not an afterthought. Slugs are generated but editable. Uploads that are still referenced by a page cannot be deleted. None of this is clever; it just means fewer broken pages and fewer panicked emails.
If your team is fighting the CMS, they are not editing content. They are doing data entry.
That is the whole test. If publishing a change takes less than five minutes and nobody has to ask a developer, the system is doing its job.