My non academic, simple definition of a CMS is pretty simple – it’s a system designed for managing content in a simple manner by the end user, without having to delve into code.

Wordpress fits that definition perfectly. Was it originally designed as this – no. Has it grown and adapted to suit user requirements – absolutely. Not everyone uses WordPress as a blog, it can be many things. You can build a whole site based on pages, and in fact that’s what all the templates over at http://www.studiopress.com are based on, and they definitely take WordPress in some interesting directions.

Wordpress can manage text pages, manage images via gallaries etc, include other media/forms of content such as video etc. Content can be stored within the system and then put together and published as required. This can be done without coding if required.

So, in my very humble opinion, is it a CMS – definitely – it can be used effectively to publish and manage content and has features built in for this purpose. Is it the most advanced tool for this task – absolutely not. But do many small businesses who only have small amounts of content to manage in simple ways need something more advanced? I would suggest in a lot of cases they don’t.

Thanks for the article, it was a great read.
Matt

WordPress is a CMS
WordPress is NOT an enterprise level CMS

I would use WordPress to run one of my personal sites.
I would not use it to run the websites at work (I lead a government web team).

The car analogy does remind somewhat of what Clarkson was writing about a while back with regards to the Nano which was basically that it exposed the real cost of making a car. If I remember rightly, he was emphasising how all of the layers of associated (but in many respects largely unecessary development and management activities) pushed the manufacturing costs up dramatically for aspects of a vehicle that were as good as, if not better, than far more expensive alternatives.

I find it interesting that quite a number of long standing practitioners who have been exposed to many types of CMS across many different implementation scenarios support the idea that WordPress is very much a CMS. This is probably because they have witnessed first hand the importance of user adoption but also just how many features of upper tier systems never actually get used, are over-complicated or are largely superfluous.

What I do think – the point I was trying to make in the rest of that paragraph – is that a CMS, besides the academic definition discussion, needs to meet some business need. In the case of WCM specifically – that is probably to deliver the requirements of marketing – a compelling, engaging website.

Of course, I presume that the requirements for these designs were not just about ‘stunning’ but also about functionality, both for the visitor and how the business user can maintain the site – otherwise they would have been static hand crafted in HTML or Flash. These sites look like they are probably driven by small web teams, meeting their requirements, similar to the point about Janus using WordPress.

Thanks for stopping by Irina, really appreciate your comment.

Cheers!

Ian

I think I am with Matt and Tony – the conversation sometimes wanders too far into academic discussions around terminology and away from requirements.

Some folks really do have very simple WCM (or CMS) requirements and my post was really about what we the ‘tradition’ or ‘mainstream’ CMS folks can learn from WP.

Janus Boye has for example proudly tweeted that his organisations website is driven by WordPress. Now Janus is not some innocent Mom and Pop store confused by our industry – the question probably should be – what turns a blog into a corporate website? Yep, requirements… I guess if Janus wanted a Danish version of his site with parallel translation processes he’d have chosen a different tool.

I think it was interesting that, as a CMS technology geek Jon Marks pitched in with this stunning set of well designed WP websites. A reminder I guess that it’s a compelling end product – the website – that drives most WCM implementations – the requirements of marketing.

Philippe there is a great conversation going on in the comments to your article, so I won’t add here, but I think we need to be cautious about taking too rigid a view on this.

Chris – BTW your website/blog just gets more awesome every time I stop by. Anyway I only referred to Wikipedia as I liked the rest of the quote from Robert Rose’s excellent post – but “right tool for the job” – absolutely.

Cheers,

Ian

It is people that drive process, and the software we choose to use should not impede that process (whatever form it might take in your organization).

A CMS–any CMS, and that includes WordPress–should be considered the end-point in a delivery strategy with the website being the result, e.g. a delivery mechanism vs. the entire process of…

Let’s not forget the value of Information Governance while we’re at it.

To be clear, I love WordPress–it’s a great example of a system that retained a clear focus as to who its market is, and more importantly, the task for which it was built in the first place. The fact that the community saw greater potential in the system and explored the possibilities of applying it elsewhere is a testament to its potential as a ubiquitous tool.

But it is just that: a tool. To glorify it as anything more than one possible means to an end is just asking for trouble; after all, isn’t it about the right tool for the job?

I think WordPress is being adopted as a content management system over many capital-letter CMSes because it focuses on an author first, and has the most robust third-party theme and plugin community. Every WordPress user is three steps (click add plugin, search, click install) from a solution to every shortcoming you describe.

Whether people decide to call us a CMS or not really doesn’t concern me, it’s a lot more interesting to work on new features and functionality our users are asking for. In the day since you posted this WP was downloaded over 60,000 times.