The martech refresh cycle is a myth | MarTech

"It seemed reasonable when agencies began pushing the idea that websites needed full redesigns every three years: browsers had limits, mobile required new builds and performance demanded new architectures. CMOs started budgeting for the next refresh the day a site launched, treating disruption as the cost of staying current. Agencies profited and new CMOs always had a ready first project - another website rebuild."

"Now platforms are declared "outdated" every few years. Monolithic becomes composable, on-prem becomes SaaS, integrations need "modernizing," and customer experience requires a "next-generation" solution. Vendors, analysts and contract cycles keep the song going: rip and replace. Dig deeper: What the composability revolution means for the martech stack However, unlike websites, marketing platforms don't need wholesale replacement to adapt. The cycle persists because it drives vendor revenue while promising relief from stack bloat and under-utilization - even though it rarely delivers."

Agencies promoted three-year website redesigns citing browser limits, mobile demands, and performance needs, prompting CMOs to budget constant refreshes and accept disruption as a cost of staying current. That pattern migrated into martech where vendors, analysts, and contract cycles normalize rip-and-replace upgrades, rebranding platforms as outdated in short cycles. Complex platform migrations consume resources, create downstream delays, and require teams to relearn tools, rebuild workflows, and retrain managers. Customer processes stall and revenue can dip during transitions while competitors operate steadily. Many migrations fail to deliver promised benefits, leaving stacks bloated, under-utilized, and diverting investment from business outcomes.

Read at MarTech