# Dropsolid Integrates Your Marketing Stack and CMS Into a Single Data Layer ![2026-09_insight_dropsolid_integra_tu_stack_de_marketing_y_tu_cms_en_una_sola_capa_de_datos-v1](https://esinergia.widen.net/content/5dnbdvpg3o/web/2026-09_insight_dropsolid_integra_tu_stack_de_marketing_y_tu_cms_en_una_sola_capa_de_datos-v1.png?v=86854c38-4494-46d8-b309-631c6217147c) When an enterprise marketing team describes its tooling problem, it almost always frames it in terms of quantity. Too many systems, too many logins, too many integrations someone has to maintain with homemade scripts. The usual conclusion is that vendors need to be consolidated. That reading misses what is actually broken. The problem is not how many tools there are. It is that the CMS, the marketing automation platform, and the analytics system each keep their own version of the same person. ## **Three coworkers who never share the report** The situation is easier to see through a simple comparison. Picture three people on the same team working on the same customer, each with their own notebook, never passing information to one another. The first keeps track of what the visitor did on the site: which pages they viewed, which form they filled out, which content they downloaded. That is the CMS. The second keeps the campaign history: which emails they opened, which nurture sequence they are in, what they showed interest in based on their clicks. That is the marketing automation platform. The third keeps the aggregate metrics: where the traffic came from, what converts best, which segment is growing. That is the analytics system. Each one does its job well. The problem shows up when someone needs the full story. The campaigns team sends an offer for a program the person already completed, because that information lives in the CMS's notebook and nobody passed it to marketing. The site shows generic content to someone already mid-conversation with sales, because the CMS does not know what the automation platform knows. And the end-of-month report tells three different stories about the same campaign, because each system measures conversion its own way. That is the real cost of running three separate notebooks: it is not visible on the licensing invoice, it shows up in the decisions made with incomplete data. ## **What sharing a single profile means technically** The technical alternative to three separate notebooks has a name and a precise definition, worth using exactly instead of talking about "integration" in the abstract. Apache Unomi, the open source project acting as the customer data layer in Dropsolid's architecture, describes itself as a server that aggregates information from different sources (CMS, CRM, marketing systems) and unifies it into a centralized profile per person. When two systems share an identifier, such as an email address, profiles merge automatically into one. That is what changes against the three-notebook scenario. The site stops asking the visitor who they are every time they interact, because it already has the answer stored in the shared profile. The marketing automation platform stops deciding blindly when to send a campaign, because it can read recent site behavior before triggering the next email. And the analytics report stops reconciling three sources by hand, because all three start from the same underlying data. ## **What Dropsolid Open DXP is, in verifiable terms** Dropsolid calls this combination Open DXP, and it is worth being precise about which components it actually brings together, rather than treating it as a black box. The architecture combines three open source projects with distinct, complementary roles: Drupal as the content and CMS layer, Mautic as the marketing automation platform, and Apache Unomi as the layer that unifies the customer profile between the two. None of the three depends on proprietary licensing, which means an institution can audit the code of the piece that unifies its customer data instead of trusting a closed box. On that base, Dropsolid AI adds an artificial intelligence layer built on top of the same three components: AI assistance inside Drupal's editorial workflow, AI-powered search, personalization backed by the profile Unomi manages, and a model gateway that lets an organization choose, swap, or self-host its language model according to its data policy. That last piece matters for healthcare and government institutions, where data location and the AI model's provider tend to be part of the compliance conversation before the technical one. ## **When this architecture makes sense** Not every institution needs to solve this problem with a composable platform like Open DXP, and it is worth being honest about that before entering the sales conversation. A university managing the full student lifecycle, from the first touchpoint on the admissions site through communication with alumni, is a clear example of this scenario. The same prospective student interacts with the site, receives nurture emails, and ends up in an analytics dashboard the marketing team reviews weekly. If those three layers do not share a profile, the university ends up treating an advanced prospect like a first-time visitor, with the friction and lost opportunity that implies. A health network with several service lines faces a similar version: the patient who books an appointment, the one who gets reminders, and the one who shows up in a prevention campaign's conversion report can be the same person seen by three systems that do not talk to each other. A government agency running online transactions and public communication campaigns has the same pattern under a different name. The citizen who starts a process on the portal, the one who gets a deadline reminder by email, and the one who shows up in the measurement of a service awareness campaign are often the same person registered three times in three different systems. The difference from the private sector shows up in how the cost gets measured: beyond conversion, it shows up directly in how many duplicate contacts a citizen receives for the same transaction. The agnostic framing esinergia applies to this decision matters here. Native Drupal can solve a good part of the content layer without adding extra pieces, and for an institution with a simpler marketing operation that route can be enough. Acquia poses its own composition of the same problem, with its own set of data and campaign products. The question that orders the decision comes down to how many marketing systems the institution already runs, and how critical it is that they share a single profile of the same visitor. ## **What to ask before deciding** Three questions that help diagnose whether the three-notebook problem exists in your organization, with no need to procure anything to answer them. **How many different systems store information about the same visitor or patient?** If the answer goes past two, there is already fertile ground for the problem. **Does someone have to export and cross-reference reports by hand to get a full view of a campaign?** That manual work is exactly what a shared profile eliminates, and it is measurable in team hours every month. **Can the site show different content to a visitor already mid-conversation on another channel?** If the answer is no, the site is operating blind to what the rest of the organization already knows. If all three answers show real fragmentation, the business case for consolidating into a shared data layer holds up on its own. If the marketing operation is still small, the investment in unifying profiles can wait until the problem outgrows the cost of solving it. There is a fourth signal worth adding once the first three come back positive: how many people on the team can currently pull a complete view of one visitor without asking someone else for a login. If the answer is close to zero, the fragmentation doubles as an access problem, and a shared profile tends to fix both at once, because a single system with role-based views replaces three separate logins with three separate permission sets. ## **What comes next** Data fragmentation between CMS and marketing automation has been around for a while, and the cost of leaving it unresolved keeps growing as institutions add channels: chat, WhatsApp, self-service portals, AI agents answering first-contact questions. Every new channel that does not share the same customer profile is another separate notebook added to the three that already existed. By 2028, the expectation that an enterprise institution recognizes the same visitor regardless of channel is going to stop being a differentiator and become the baseline. Organizations that solve the shared data layer now, while the number of channels is still manageable, are going to reach that point with an architecture in place. Those that leave it until the problem is unmanageable are going to have to solve data unification and channel multiplication at the same time. The gap between the two groups will not be visible in the tools each one bought, it will be visible in how long it takes their support and marketing teams to answer a simple question about one customer's history. --- If your organization's conversation is still about what it means to operate on a digital experience layer before deciding how to compose it, that framework lives in [What Is a DXP and Does Your Company Really Need One?](https://esinergia.co/en/insights/what-is-a-dxp-does-your-company-need-one). And if the angle you are interested in is how this same content integration question looks solved from another ecosystem provider, we cover it in [How Drupal and Acquia Transform Content Management in Digital Platforms](https://esinergia.co/en/insights/how-drupal-acquia-transform-content-management-digital-platforms). ### Category - Plataformas Digitales Enterprise ### Gabriel Valencia Líder Enterprise Growth ### DATE 18 Sep, 2026